Romney proposes tax cuts for the Romney class

Because more tax cuts for the super rich is what the US needs right now. The new Romney plan is all about helping himself and his friends who are part of the 1%.

Romney’s earlier economic plan called only for preserving the current top tax rate of 35 percent, while holding out the promise of lower rates later in an overhaul of the tax code. But facing a major challenge from upstart Republican rival Rick Santorum, he has chosen to outline such an overhaul today in Arizona ahead of critical Feb. 28 primaries there and in Michigan — and before a televised debate Wednesday night in Mesa. Romney’s top economic adviser, Glenn Hubbard, said the plan would cut all six current tax brackets — 10, 15, 25, 28, 33, and 35 percent, depending on a taxpayer’s income — by the same proportion of 20 percent. That would produce this new set of tax brackets: 8, 12, 20, 22.4, 26.4, and 28 percent. “It’s a marginal rate cut for every American,” Hubbard said.

Read the rest of this post...

Bush appointee strikes down DOMA in Golinski case

John Boehner is wasting $1m in taxpayer money defending these cases, and he's losing. Read the rest of this post...

Video: Cats go after iPad generated mouse

I get a kick out of how the one cat seems to be playing while laying sideways, and how both think the iPad generated mice are hiding under the iPad.  I need to download this game and see if my dog Sasha falls for it.

Read the rest of this post...

Romney tries to posthumously convert Reagan to Romneyism

Romney famously distanced himself from Ronald Reagan during the 1990s:

Romney in 1994: “I was an independent during the time of Reagan-Bush. I’m not trying to return to Reagan-Bush.”

Now Romney is bragging via his national communications director that his new tax plan "goes the full Reagan" (which I guess is a reference to the "full Monty," which nowadays means full frontal nudity - brings new meaning to "the gipper").

@EricFehrn Romney tax plan "goes the full Reagan." mi.tt/yn4fhH

It's like Romney is trying to posthumously baptize Ronald Reagan and convert him to Romney-ism.  There is truly nothing Mitt Romney won't say to get elected. Read the rest of this post...

Radiation detected 400 miles off Japanese coast

Not good. Whether it's still below the safety levels or not, this is bad news.

Radioactive contamination from the Fukushima power plant disaster has been detected as far as almost 400 miles off Japan in the Pacific Ocean, with water showing readings of up to 1,000 times more than prior levels, scientists reported Tuesday. But those results for the substance cesium-137 are far below the levels that are generally considered harmful, either to marine animals or people who eat seafood, said Ken Buesseler of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution in Massachusetts.

Read the rest of this post...

Mormons secretly baptized and converted Catholic Holocaust hero

You have to hand it to the Mormons, they're an equal opportunity bully (gays, blacks, women, Jews, and now Catholics).  From NPR:

He wasn't Jewish and he wasn't a victim of the Holocaust, but the discovery of Jan Karski's name on Mormon proxy baptism records has angered those already upset about posthumous Mormon baptisms of prominent Jews and Holocaust victims.

Jan Karski was a Catholic whose mission for the Polish resistance during World War II included sneaking into the Warsaw ghetto, where he witnessed executions and naked bodies piled in the streets. Then he disguised himself as a Ukrainian guard and infiltrated a concentration camp.

Karski biographer E. Thomas Wood credits the former Polish diplomat with providing the first detailed descriptions of the systematic extermination of Jews to Allied leaders in London.

I've told you for the hundredth time, mom, it's all just an "unfortunate mistake" that keeps happening over and over again over the span of decades, with no apparent end in sight, and always seems to target the Holocaust.  Funny coincidence, that.

As for the Mormons claiming that they only go after the souls of direct ancestors, their "apostle" says otherwise:

Church policy limits the baptisms to direct ancestors but Mormon Apostle Quentin Cook told NPR in 2009, "We concentrate first of all on our ancestors and then for the people in the world at large." [emphasis added.]

Oops.  Rest assured than many a public promise will be made to the Catholics, until the next time it happens, and it will. Read the rest of this post...

Catholic church bans Girl Scouts because they’re not politically pure enough

Now the Catholics are beating up on Girl Scouts.  Just how many children does this church plan to harm?  First it was the child rapes they continue to aid and abet.  Then it was the orphans they cut off in order to take a swipe at the gays.  And now they're bashing Girl Scouts.

What is it with the Catholic church and this need to hurt kids?  Ordinary Catholics need to stand up to their own church and stop funding the hate.

Would Jesus really bash a Girl Scout?  Really? Read the rest of this post...

Obama to propose lowering corporate tax rate to 28 percent

The headline says half of the "story" — the half that will likely stick if this passes.

Here's the Washington Post with some background. In my opinion, this is the key paragraph in the piece, and it's from the middle (my emphasis):

The current U.S. corporate tax rate of 35 percent is one of the highest in the world, but the abundance of loopholes and deductions enable many businesses to pay far less than that — or nothing at all. Companies in the United States pay almost half the taxes that companies in other rich countries pay, compared with the size of the economy, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.

And now Mr. Obama's proposal — How about we cut your taxes even further and remove those pesky loopholes?

Or, as the Wash Post puts it:

The Obama administration will propose a major overhaul of the nation’s corporate tax code on Wednesday, an election-year gambit that aims to draw a contrast over a key policy issue with the Republicans vying to replace him.

The plan would lower the nation’s corporate tax rate to 28 percent. At the same time, he wants to boost overall revenues from corporate taxation by banning numerous deductions and loopholes that save companies tens of billions of dollars a year on their tax bills, according to a senior administration official.

I emphasized three elements of that offer. These represent "all you need to know" about Mr. Ever-the-clever-one's proposal:

(1) It's designed to manipulate perception. Like all advertising, it isn't a something, it's the appearance of a something. First and foremost, this is an entirely insincere act — designed to move the electoral needle and not the economic one — and acknowledged as such by the writer. (Why won't it move the economic needle? Keep reading.)

(2) He wants to lower corporate tax rates by 20% (four-fifths of 35% is 28%). I don't see any way in the world that won't pass; unless, of course, the Republicans hold out for even more. (His very own Catfood Commission — the so-called Bowles-Simpson Deficit Commission — wanted corp taxes lowered to 26%. Republicans could start there and work down.)

(3) He wants to close "deductions and loopholes." Ahem; might I refer you to our Obama Grand Bargain Drinking Game?

So here's the drinking game. Every time Obama says:

        ▪ Reform entitlements
        ▪ Strengthen Social Security
        ▪ Reform Medicare
        ▪ Reform Medicaid

Nod wisely to show you're a Very Serious Person. Every time Obama says:

        ▪ Raise revenues
        ▪ Reform the tax code
        ▪ Close loopholes
        ▪ Reduce defense spending

Raise a glass of your beverage, down it, and say "Never gonna happen!"

Eleven dimensional enough for you?

GP Read the rest of this post...

Obama’s march to socialism drives Dow to new heights, as do most Democratic administrations

Who would have guessed that Wall Street loved socialism so much? Despite all of the griping, Wall Street consistently grows better under Democratic presidents as Bloomberg details. I'm not a believer in the value of Wall Street to the broader population, but it's clear Wall Street is full of it when they complain about Obama or any Democrat when you look at this.

In related news, John has already written about how 71% of the national debt occurred under Republican presidents.  And how it's always Republican presidents killing manufacturing jobs.  So maybe Wall Street is on to something. Read the rest of this post...

25 percent of super PAC money from only 5 people

This number is as ridiculous as the concentration of wealth in America. If this is how it's going to be, then let's stop calling ourselves the leading or best democracy in the world, and just admit that we're a banana republic.

Anyone who tries saying that the system is fair is a flat out liar.  We have become a government by the super rich, for the super rich -- and the numbers are there to prove it. It should come as no surprise that the leading GOP candidate for president is the richest person ever to run for that office.

USA Today:

Five wealthy people, led by Dallas industrialist Harold Simmons and Las Vegas casino mogul Sheldon Adelson, have donated nearly $1 of every $4 flowing to the super PACs raising unlimited money in this year's presidential race, a USA TODAY analysis shows. Those donations have helped new Republican-leaning outside groups swamp Democratic-friendly super PACs in fundraising — money that is used largely for attack ads. The large sums also have rejuvenated the underfunded campaigns of principal challengers to former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney in the race for the Repulican nomination. "Without the flow of super PAC money, the Republican race would be over," said Anthony Corrado, a campaign-finance expert at Colby College in Maine. "Super PACs have become a vehicle for a very small number of millionaires and billionaires who are willing to spend large sums in pursuit of their political agenda."

People can sugar coat this however they like, but this is flat out corruption. Period. Read the rest of this post...

The Rachet Effect—Why do post-Carter politics only move to the right?

This post is about the goal of a real Progressive Coalition, should we ever get one. I'll be writing about a "real progressive coalition" much more as we move into the election and post-election seasons.

In a recent piece on Obama, the Republican Bishops, and contraception, I mentioned the Overton Window (click to read if you're not familiar with the concept).

Commenter Roman Berry then added another interesting analogy — the "Rachet Effect," and pointed us to this chapter in an online work-in-progress by Michael J. Smith.

I don't endorse the book (which I haven't read), but I really like this metaphor as an clear explanation of what we've been observing since 1978, if not earlier.

In a chapter called "The rachet effect" the author writes (my emphasis and some reparagraphing):

The ratchet is a simple, ubiquitous, ancient bit of machinery. There's one in your bicycle wheel (it allows you to coast without pedaling), there's one in your watch (if you're the old-fashioned type and have a mechanical watch) ... What the ratchet does is permit rotation in one direction but not in the other.

Here's a diagram of a simple rachet:


Rachets have a wheel (item 1), a pawl (item 2), and a base which locks them together. Note that this wheel can move counter-clockwise all it wants. But if it attempts to reverse any move, the pawl prevents it. The wheel can stand still or move forward; it just can't move back.

Exactly like our political system. The author again:

The American political system, since at least 1968, has been operating like a ratchet, and both parties -- Republicans and Democrats -- play crucial, mutually reinforcing roles in its operation. The electoral ratchet permits movement only in the rightward direction. The Republican role is fairly clear; the Republicans apply the torque that rotates the thing rightward.

The Democrats' role is a little less obvious. The Democrats are the pawl. They don't resist the rightward movement -- they let it happen -- but whenever the rightward force slackens momentarily, for whatever reason, the Democrats click into place and keep the machine from rotating back to the left.

Whatever the cause, it's a perfect analogy, isn't it? Very clever on the part of the author.

As to the answer to the question in the headline — "Why?" — my explanation is simple. Money enables Republicans and neuters Dems.

In support, Smith offers this story:

I have a somewhat unlikely friend, a rich man in Chicago -- let's call him Al. Politics is not Al's profession, or even his first interest in life, but he is a well-connected, intelligent guy who has some pet political causes. I happened to ask him one year, during a Senatorial campaign, which candidate he and his friends were contributing to. ... Al looked at me as if I had just revealed unsuspected depths of idiocy. "Both, of course," he replied. ...

"But... which one do you want to win?" He laughed. "It doesn't matter. We own 'em both."

And that's the name of the game, in one handy metaphor.

In my view, it's the job of the Progressive Coalition, if we ever get one, to remove the pawl.

Offered for your mechanical enlightenment,

GP Read the rest of this post...

Rick Santorum, Satan and Hitler walk in to a bar...

I have to chuckle that GOP presidential candidate, and uber-Catholic, Rick Santorum is being blasted by GOP propagandists Matt Drudge and Rush Limbaugh for - what? - basically being a Christian.  The Republican party let itself be taken over by Christianists (aka thumpers) a long time ago, and to now pretend that a Republican leader believing Satan is interested in harming America is somehow controversial, strikes me as a bit naive, or better yet, disingenuous.

Not to mention, of all the things Rick Santorum has said and done, it's his belief in Satan that most freaks people out on the right?  Seriously, guys?

What Santorum said that's now causing such angst among the Limbaugh/Drudge crowd is not exactly something the Republicans haven't been saying for years.  1) God exists. 2) Therefore Satan exists. 3) Republicans think God, and specifically Christians (and preferably Catholics or Baptists) should be running the country and imposing Christian-based laws on the rest of us. 4) Other religions, and even other versions of Christianity, don't count. 5) That Republicans are the party of God (pun intended). 6) And that Democrats aren't (thus the Obama is Muslim meme, among others).

I'm sure I'm missing a few.

What did Santorum say that didn't fit into that nice neat package?

Honestly, as a Christian myself, the only thing I can really find in what he said that annoys me is his suggestion that other Christian religions, and I think he means "liberal" Christian faiths, don't really count.  That's typical of Republicans, but it's obnoxious to hear it said so directly.

Nonetheless, Santorum said nothing outside of the mainstream of GOP thinking, and most of it doesn't really strike me as that far out of Christian thinking generally. (I mean, if there is a Satan, would be trying to corrupt our country?  Sure, why not.)

I'm happy to challenge someone over their obnoxious religious beliefs.  (Mitt Romney and his gay-bashing, anti-Semitic, racist, sexist jam-our-rules-down-your-throat Mormon friends come to mind.)  But getting all over Rick Santorum because he believes in Satan?  I'm just not feeling it.

Now what should bother people is Santorum's comparison of Barack Obama to Hitler.  I've got a feeling that Drudge and Limbaugh couldn't care less about that one.  More on that later this morning. Read the rest of this post...

Ratings agency sued in Australia for giving positive ratings to junk

As the article says, there are similar cases in the US, but they are bogged down in the system. In the US, there do seem to be some efforts to demand more from the ratings agencies, but considering the damage done leading up to the 2008 crash, much more should be done. How is it so obvious to everyone that the ratings agencies were churning out dodgy information (often linked to contracts with those being rated) yet little changes? Maybe this will be the breakthrough needed to clean up the ratings agency cesspool.

Looking at the closing submissions which have now been filed with the Federal Court, the councils contend that S&P failed to exercise reasonable care and had “no reasonable grounds” for its AAA rating on the Rembrandts. The councils argue that this is supported by the limited historical data relied upon to rate the product. This was a new product, a “CPDO”, even more risky than a CDO and based on an index of derivatives which had only been going for a couple of years. They also say S&P made a “critical error” when it relied on the advice of investment bank ABN Amro regarding the Rembrandt's historical volatility. “Nobody from S&P ever checked that figure and it was not supported by any data... The figure became the cornerstone of the rating,” says the submissions.

Trillions of dollars were lost yet to date, no individual or company has been guilty of any crime. Amazing. Read the rest of this post...

Luxury hotels of the Romney campaign

Think Progress built the Pinterest collection using information released by the Romney campaign.  Basically, it's all the luxury hotels that Mitt Romney stayed at in, I believe, January alone.  Some people sure have money to burn during these tough times.  While corporations aren't people, some people sure do seem to be one-man corporations. Read the rest of this post...