Skip to content

Juggling Taxes

Interview with Grover Norquist.

Norquist sums up his new book, saying that Republicans should make a list of everything Obama is doing and “do the opposite”. How’s that for bipartisanship?

Share

Chicken Hawk Romney

As usual, Romney is only too happy to support all sides of every issue (and lie about it).

Back in 1965 while a student at Stanford University, Romney was a strong supporter of the Vietnam war and participated in pro-war protests. Not only did Romney not enlist in the war he praised, the same year he was protesting Romney sought and received his first student deferment. Even though deferments were available to students, they were not automatically granted — students had to apply for them. Slightly hypocritical.

When he was no longer eligible for a student deferment, he applied for and received a deferment as a “minister of religion” to do Mormon missionary work in France. This, however, was not a routine deferment and was controversial. At the time the Mormon church was a strong supporter of the war and discouraged its missionaries from obtaining a deferment. Indeed, during the time that Romney had such a deferment, the church started limiting the number of church missionaries who were allowed to defer their military service.

Not only did Romney get a religious deferment, he received an extraordinary long one (from 1966 to 1969, during the height of the war). How? Recall that Romney’s father George was both rich and powerful. Even though three generations of the Romney family, including George and all of his sons (including Mitt) were of military age, none of them served. In 1969, after his (extra long) religious deferment ran out, he applied for and obtained yet another college deferment. Even more hypocritical.

While Romney was originally a strong supporter of the war, by the 5th year of his deferment he had changed his mind. In an interview with the Boston Globe he said “If it wasn’t a political blunder to move into Vietnam, I don’t know what is.”

In 1994, when Mitt Romney was running for the Senate, he told the Boston Herald “I was not planning on signing up for the military. It was not my desire to go off and serve in Vietnam, but nor did I take any actions to remove myself from the pool of young men who were eligible for the draft.” Of course that last part is a complete fabrication, since Selective Service records clearly show Romney applying for repeated deferments.

But it doesn’t stop there. In 2007 during his first bid for the White House, Romney told the Boston Globe “I was supportive of my country. I longed in many respects to actually be in Vietnam and be representing our country there, and in some ways it was frustrating not to feel like I was there as part of the troops that were fighting in Vietnam.” Even bigger lie.

And of course, Romney follows in the footsteps of a long line of Republican chicken hawks with their pro-military rhetoric. Even though he never served in the military Romney wants to increase military spending dramatically, and often saber-rattles against Iran. He also attacks Obama for his plans to scale back the nation’s military commitments abroad.

Of course, some people may want to point out that Barack Obama did not serve in the military either. But Obama is 15 years younger than Romney, and was a young child during the Vietnam war.

UPDATE: The secret diary of Mitt Romney’s service in Vietnam as a “chickenhawk”. Fred Wickham hits another hilarious bullseye!

Share

Showdown

It looks like we will have a showdown in the near future.

The White House has stated, as clear as they can, that Obama will not support an extension of the Bush Era tax cuts for Americans making more than $250,000 a year. Period.

And Republicans have sworn to not “raise” taxes, even if it isn’t an actual raise, but is really just letting what was passed as a temporary tax cut expire. The Bush Tax cuts were instituted right after Bush got us into two very expensive and long-lasting wars. He and the Republicans promised that cutting taxes would improve the economy, but instead the economy tanked and the deficit went through the ceiling. As Bush himself put it, we won’t get fooled again!

Republicans even claim closing loopholes that allow multinational corporations to not pay any taxes at all are tax increases. This madness has to stop! Even without the Bush era tax cuts, taxes are already lower than they were under Reagan. And Reagan raised taxes when he had to. Grover Norquist complains about Bush Sr. raising taxes, but somehow fails to mention that Reagan raised taxes (more than once).

I am very glad that Obama is drawing a line. He has already compromised on this and all it did was delay our economic recovery. The time for compromising on this issue is over.

Of course, the Republicans will make a lot of noise about this. Just look at what they just did with Clinton’s recent remarks. The GOP claims that Bill Clinton said we should extend the Bush tax cuts temporarily, but if you read the full interview in PolitiFact he said nothing of the kind.

Republicans are going to lie about this. They are going to attack Obama. They are going to claim he raised taxes and increased spending, when he did neither. Obama has lowered taxes (especially on the middle class) and has cut spending. When the Republicans were in power, all they did was cut taxes and increase spending. The Republicans are really just complaining because Obama is refusing to give another handout to the only people who don’t need a handout, the very richest 1%. If we do throw even more money at the rich, they will just create a new bubble when they try to find a place to invest it. And the only jobs they will create will be in other countries.

Tell Obama to be firm on this. I am one of those people whose taxes will go up, but I say, it is about time.

Share

Your Priorities Are Where You Put Your Energy

Republicans in the US House are showing us their priorities. On Tuesday, they passed an energy spending bill that is riddled with amendments that are bad for our country. Compared to what Obama requested, they removed funding for clean-energy and efficiency programs, and added additional money for fossil-fuel and nuclear programs.

But the most ironic amendment was one that strips the government of the ability to enforce the light bulb efficiency standards that already went into effect this year. Even though the efficiency law was passed in 2007 — under George Bush — that hasn’t stopped the GOP from using it to attack Obama.

Assuming this amendment survives, it won’t actually do what its promoters claim. The light bulb efficiency law would still be on the books, and US manufacturers have already changed their products to comply with the law, so they will keep making more efficient light bulbs that generate the same amount of light with less electricity. Instead, it will open the doors to unscrupulous foreign manufacturers to dump cheap, inferior light bulbs on the American market (with no way for the government to enforce the law).

So, in one stroke, the GOP shows that it wants to increase our energy dependence, hurt US manufacturers and put US jobs at risk, damage the economy, and increase pollution. Could it be any clearer?

Share

A Fable For Our Time

It may not be a bedtime story, but it sure is a “good night” story.

Share

Catch 22

New York decriminalized possession of small amounts of marijuana over 30 years ago. So why have arrests for marijuana possession skyrocketed there, making it the #1 arrest category in the state? The answer is ironic.

When the state decriminalized possession of less than 25 grams of marijuana, they left possession of the same amount in public view a criminal misdemeanor, punishable by up to three months in jail and a $500 fine. That may seem reasonable, since lawmakers didn’t want people going around smoking weed openly in public. But instead, it created a classic Catch 22.

Often, however, the police approach young people and instruct them to empty their pockets immediately and show the officers anything they have. People who have a small quantity of marijuana in their pockets take it out and hold it up. The marijuana is now in public view.

So if the police order you to empty your pockets, you can either refuse their order, which is itself a crime, or you can pull the not-a-crime marijuana out of your pocket and turn it into a crime, for which you will be arrested. The police are essentially ordering you to commit a crime. Isn’t that entrapment?

In 2011, more than 50,000 people were arrested for criminal possession in New York City alone, costing the government around $75 million in judicial and financial cost. The punch line, of course, is that 85% of those arrested for criminal possession are black or latino, even though studies consistently show that whites use marijuana as much or more than minorities.

The possession of small quantities of marijuana is either a crime or it is not. But it cannot be criminal activity for one group of people and socially acceptable behavior for another when the dividing line is race.

Even worse, this trick takes people who are not actually committing any crime and turns them into criminals with a criminal record. Even just having an arrest on your record makes it more difficult to go to college or get a job.

In an age when many people, including our last three presidents, have admitted to smoking marijuana, isn’t this not just hypocritical, but blatant racism?

Share

Overheard

I overheard someone saying that the only reason they could think of for voting Republican in the upcoming election is that if they won, they’d have to stop sabotaging our country in order to make Obama look bad.

The only problem with that theory is that when Bush and the Republicans were in power, they might not have been purposely sabotaging the country, but they did a pretty damn good job of it anyway.


© Jim Morin

Share

Late Night Political Humor

“On Friday, President Obama spent the night at his home in Chicago for the first time in over a year. It was nice – he even went down to the basement and dusted off some old campaign promises.” – Jimmy Fallon

“That’s right, Obama spent the night at his home in Chicago. Of course it got awkward when he left and his housekeeper was like, ‘So, see you after the election?'” – Jimmy Fallon

“According to a new book coming out by a Pulitzer Prize-winning author, apparently when he was in high school, President Obama smoked large amounts of marijuana. You know what that means? He could be our first green president.” – Jay Leno

“Unemployment is still looking pretty bad. In fact, the White House has a new slogan on job creation: ‘Hope and change the subject.'” – Jay Leno

“The unemployment numbers are higher than President Obama was in high school.” – Jay Leno

“New research shows that elderly people emit a distinct odor. Yeah, the study was conducted by two guys stuck in an elevator with Larry King.” – Conan O’Brien

Share

Money isn’t just speech, it’s votes!


© Matt Wuerker

Actually, I think the ratio was just above 7 to 1, with most of the $30 million for the Republican Scott Walker coming from out of state.

And it worked. Walker prevailed 53.5% to 45.9%. Walker is the first governor in US history to survive a recall election.

Last week, Karl Rove and the Koch brothers announced that they plan to spend more than $1 billion on the November election.

Share

Taking Irony to the Next Level

It was bad enough when Republicans started disenfranchising voters in the name of preventing voter fraud. It doesn’t seem to matter that various studies have found that voter fraud is pretty much non-existant in this country (heck, it is hard enough to get people to cast one vote). But that didn’t stop vigilant conservatives from passing 22 new laws supposedly designed to prevent (the virtually nonexistent) voter fraud. In fact, you have to go back to the days immediately after the civil war — when the south was desperately trying to suppress the black vote with notorious Jim Crow laws and the north was almost equally trying to keep immigrants from voting — to find so many laws being passed to “prevent” voter fraud.

As a result, millions — as many as 10 percent of Americans — will suddenly find themselves unable to vote, coincidentally most of them people who tend to vote Democratic. If that number sounds high, consider that 11% of Americans do not have a government-issued ID card, and the numbers are considerably higher for young voters (18%) or blacks (25%).

But at least Republicans could claim that they were merely trying to reduce voter fraud. But as usual they are starting to overreach, putting the lie to their claims.

In Ohio, Republicans are trying to throw out ballots because of mistakes made by poll workers. In one example, poll workers sent voters to the wrong precinct table to vote. So those voter’s ballots did not count even though the voters had done everything right. Luckily, that case ended up in court and as a result of counting those ballots, the previously losing candidate instead won the election.

However, now the state is trying to reverse that decision and require ballots to be thrown out, even if the only mistake is one made by a poll worker. So how is this going to reduce voter fraud? It seems to me it will be an open invitation to dramatically increase fraud; not voter fraud, but fraud perpetrated by unscrupulously partisan poll workers.

If that weren’t bad enough, another provision would prevent poll workers from helping voters find the correct precinct if they mistakenly show up at the wrong polling location. Silly me, I thought the purpose of poll workers was to facilitate voting!

So their true colors are showing — Republicans aren’t actually interested in preventing voter fraud, they are only interested in preventing voting by people with whom they don’t agree.

UPDATE: The Empire Strikes Back.

Share

Too Much Information


© Joel Pett

This is a question that has been bugging me for some time. I love the Internet, I make my living from it, and even if I didn’t I couldn’t imagine living without it now. But at the same time, I wonder if on balance, has the Internet has been a good thing for our democracy?

You would think that the free flow of information, including removing the government and corporate gatekeepers to information, would be nothing but good. But instead we suffer from information overload, and there are so many choices of information it is difficult to separate the good information from the lies and propaganda. With so many choices, people seem to mainly view information that reinforces their existing beliefs, leading to further polarization. I suspect that it was no coincidence that the rise in partisanship in Washington was simultaneous with the widespread adoption of the Internet.

This isn’t just true of the Internet. Does anyone believe that cable news networks (and the resulting 24-hour news cycle) provide better information? Before that, did network TV news provide better information than newspapers? Several studies even claim that watching Fox News even makes you less well informed, and yet it is the most popular new source in our country. Is too much information making us stupid?

Even worse, I have no idea what could possibly be done to solve this problem.

Share

Media Bias

The next time someone complains about how the media is in love with Obama, just show them this graph:

This chart is driven by data from the non-partisan and widely respected Pew Research Center’s Project for Excellence in Journalism. It tracks negative and positive coverage over time for the major political candidates. The red lines are for Romney, and the blue lines are for Obama.

The solid lines are for positive coverage in the mainstream media. In the last year, coverage of Romney has always been more positive than coverage of Obama.

The dashed lines are for negative coverage. The chart shows there has been more negative coverage of Obama than negative coverage of Romney most of the time.

My guess is the people who are complaining about positive coverage of Obama are people who believe any positive coverage of Obama is too much.

Share

Political Evolution


© Ruben Bolling

Does this make Fox News the holy profit prophet of the political creationists?

Share

Late Night Political Humor

“Oh, Jon! Did I ever tell you that I, Roger Ailes, plan to undermine the role of an independent press by constantly whining at any reportage that deviates from a staunch conservative narrative is biased, while at the same time filling the editorial vacuum that that creates by building a Conservative propaganda juggernaut in the guise of a news organization… Jon, I’m gonna call the organization Fox News, and its tagline will be — you’re gonna love this: ‘A Fanatically Micro-Managed Media Fiefdom Where My Own Far-Right Agenda And Personal Sense of Victomhood Drive Every Aspect of the Operation… and Balanced.'” –Jon Stewart (“recalling” a conversation with Fox News chief Roger Ailes)

“Next week Mitt Romney will campaign in Las Vegas with Donald Trump and Newt Gingrich. Did somebody say ‘The Hangover, Part III?'” – Jimmy Fallon

“Mitt Romney pledged this week (that) if elected president, he will drive down unemployment to 6% or lower before the end of his first term. Well, it’s easy enough to do; all he has to do is re-hire the people he already fired.” – Jay Leno

“First lady Michelle Obama said that if she could trade places with anyone in the world, it would be Beyoncé. Of course it got awkward when Barack was like, ‘I’m game!'” – Jimmy Fallon

Share

Natural Born Irony

The ironic thing about all this birther nonsense is that it applies just as much to Romney as it does to Obama (which is to say, it really doesn’t apply to either of them).

People argue that Obama’s father was born in Kenya. But Mitt Romney’s father, George Romney, was born in Mexico.

So what.

Even more ironic, George Romney ran for president during the 1968 election. At the time, some people questioned whether Romney was qualified to be president, because the constitution requires that the president has to be a “natural born citizen”. Mitt Romney’s father argued:

I am a natural born citizen. My parents were American citizens. I was a citizen at birth.

Indeed, the Congressional Research Service (the arm of the Library of Congress that does research for Congress) researched the issue and declared that “natural born citizen” would “most likely include” not only anyone born on US soil, but also anyone born elsewhere of at least one parent who was a US citizen. Under that definition, even if Obama was born in Kenya, he would still be qualified to be president because his mother was a US citizen.

As for George Romney, he lost the primary to Richard Nixon, so the question was never tested.

The same issue came up with John McCain, who was born in Panama (his parents were stationed in the canal zone with the military).

Of course, these are just facts (stubborn things, those). I think the real purpose of the birther noise is to promote the mistrustful feeling of “other” about Obama (i.e., he can’t be president because he doesn’t look like me and has a funny name). Yes, I’m playing the racism card. But I’m just calling a spade a spade (oops).

Share