I don't see how any American who isn't a complete idiot can vote for a Republican

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Mitt Romney, yesterday, at The University of Chicago:

I don't see how a young American can vote for, well, can vote for a Democrat.

He was referring to national debt and the accumulation thereof, trying to make the case that Republicans are "consumed with the idea of getting federal spending down and creating economic growth and opportunity so we can balance our budget and stop putting these debts on you."

Which makes him sound all responsible, though of course what he was doing was being dishonest.

Republicans aren't consumed with balancing the budget, they're consumed with lowering taxes on the rich, on people like, oh, Mitt Romney.

And if they were really consumed with improving the country's fiscal health, they'd support the Affordable Care Act (aka Obamacare, itself derived from Romneycare, Mitt's relatively progressive reform package in Massachusetts), which seeks to get health-care spending under control and which will significantly reduce the deficit. But of course they consider it the worst attack on freedom in American history (one of the truly most ridiculous claims in American history) -- even if it's actually a Republican idea.

And if they were really consumed about balancing the budget, they'd support cuts to military spending and, yes, progressive taxation that places a fair burden on the shoulders of the rich, particularly Romney and his plutocratic ilk, not just letting the disastrous Bush tax cuts expire but advocating higher taxes on those who most certainly can afford to make a greater sacrifice. But of course tax increases of any kind, even returning to the tax rates of the prosperous Clinton years, are anathema to Republicans, without exception. And, no, they don't support military spending cuts either.

But let's get back to what Romney said. Why would a young American vote for a Democrat? Because it's not just about balanced budgets, it's about doing something about climate change, about caring for the poor, about not waging war on women and their health, about extending health coverage to the uninsured, about not getting entangled in imperialist foreign wars, about making sure air and water are clean, about being fair and compassionate to undocumented immigrants who only want a better life in America. It's about so many things that really, truly matter to young people today, things about which Romney either doesn't seem to give a shit or doesn't seems to have a clue. And on these and so many other things, it's the Democrats who stand for the hopes and dreams of young Americans.

Mitt, if you want to know how a young American, or any American who isn't a complete idiot, can vote for a Democrat (you know, like President Obama), go take a good long look in the mirror. There's your answer.

(photo)

Romney and Santorum and inequality

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Yesterday, Bill Burton, former Obama White House deputy press secretary, tweeted the following:

In 2010, Santorum made $983,000 and paid 28.5% in taxes. In 2010, Romney made $21.7 million and paid 13.9% in taxes. 

So unfair. So unjust. (Seriously.)

But at least Santorum got Megadeath's Dave Mustaine's endorsement. That's... positive... right? I mean, he's a major... cultural... figure... who will bring in masses of metalhead votes. Take that, Mitt!

Oh, right, Romney got Michigan Governor Rick Snyder's endorsement.

What's better -- the governor's support with the primary coming up or having half the tax rate of your opponent?

Doesn't matter. Romney has both.

So very, very unfair.

My one and only post about Fred Karger

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Who's Fred Karger, you ask? Why he's a political consultant and gay rights activist running for the Republican -- yes, the Republican -- nomination for president. Suffice to say that he's not doing all that well. But he is on the ballot in Michigan!

I've been on his mailing list throughout the campaign. I didn't sign up, I didn't ask for it, but there I am. And I'm fine with it. He seems like a decent guy and if his campaign wants to send me an e-mail now and then, so be it. I can pay attention or not. Usually not.

But yesterday... well, yesterday came one of the best moments of the whole campaign so far. Yes, courtesy of Fred Karger.

He announced yesterday in an e-mail blast that he has released his tax returns from 2000 to 2010, obviously a swipe at Romney. But that wasn't all. Do you know where he actually made the announcement? No, probably not...

At the George Romney Institute for Law and Public Policy at Adrian College in Michigan.

Yes, that George Romney. The dad.

"George Romney did the right thing 44 years ago when he released 12 years of his federal tax returns," said Fred. "He was the first presidential candidate to do so when he ran for president in 1968. At the time he said he released so many years of tax documents because one year was not enough. I just followed his lead."

If only his son were so, er, honorable (and less of a privileged rich douchebag with a massively plutocratic sense of entitlement).

Well done, Mr. Karger. And well played.

**********

Photo above, with more on Karger, here. He may not be what Republicans are looking for, not even close (you know, being gay and all), but he's certainly a partisan:

There is no doubting Karger's Republican credentials. He has spent his life working for the party's cause as a top strategist. Like Karl Rove, he was a disciple of the controversial Republican tactician Lee Atwater. Indeed, Karger played a key role in publicising the "Willie Horton" adverts that destroyed the Democratic candidate Michael Dukakis in 1988.

Yeah, that's some serious GOP cred.

Mitt Romney: The douchebaggery deepens

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Via twitter: 

Romney says omitting a $3M Swiss bank account from financial disclosures was "trivial." (link to an important L.A. Times story)

-- ThinkProgress (@thinkprogress)

Add this to his dismissive claim that almost half a million dollars (for his speaking fees) is "not very much," and you can see why the privileged rich douchebag narrative has taken hold. (And won't be going away anytime soon, if ever, especially with Newt going all right-wing populist on him and with the Obama campaign salivating more and more with each new embarrassing revelation.)

I realize he's a very wealthy man with money all over the world, from Switzerland to the Caymans, but how do you just omit $3 million? And how, as a major political figure with presidential aspirations, do you not take better care of your financial statements? Do you really not think someone's going to do a little digging?

Or do you have such a lofty sense of plutocratic entitlement, what with all your "secret" foreign bank accounts, that you just can't be bothered to give a damn?

What are you hiding in those tax returns, Mitt?

By Michael J.W. Stickings 

Via twitter: 

Romney tells Fox why he won't release his tax returns now: "I don't want to give the Democrats a nice little present." (link)

-- ThinkProgress (@thinkprogress)

Is he such a privileged rich douchebag with such an oversized sense of entitlement that he thinks he can tell us he's hiding something without really giving a shit, or is he just a clueless politico with severe foot-in-mouth disease?

Fair question, I think.

Is it any wonder Mitt Romney has been hiding his tax returns?

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Well, under pressure from all sides, he's finally going to release them, and they will show, as he admitted yesterday, that his effective rate was about 15 percent.

Think about that all you middle-class earners out there, all you ordinary Americans. A whopping 15 percent. For a multi-multi-millionaire. What's surprising, actually, isn't that he paid so little but that he paid so much, being a plutocrat and all:

"It's probably closer to the 15 percent rate than anything," Mr. Romney said. "Because my last 10 years, I've — my income comes overwhelmingly from investments made in the past, rather than ordinary income, or rather than earned annual income."

Mr. Romney added: "And then I get speaker's fees from time to time, but not very much."

In fact, in the most recent year, Mr. Romney made $374,327.62 in speaker's fees, at an average of $41,592 per speech, according to his public financial disclosure reports.

The vast majority of Mr. Romney's income this year came in the form of investment income, whether dividends or capital gains on mutual funds and retirement accounts, or his post-retirement share of profits and investment returns from Bain Capital, which would be subject to the same 15 percent tax rate.

President Obama paid an effective federal tax rate of just over 26 percent on his 2010 returns, the most recent available.

Must be nice to be able to pay so little in taxes -- and to be able to say that about $375,000 is "not very much." Think about that, all you people out there having trouble paying the bills and putting food on the table and taking care of your kids and worrying about your job, if you're even lucky enough to have a job right now.

Here's Steve Benen making much the same point:

The political significance of Mitt Romney's hidden tax returns almost certainly has to do with his tax rates. The Republican frontrunner has been reluctant to admit he pays much lower tax rates than middle-class workers, despite the vast wealth he made during his vulture-capitalist career.

*****

The politics of this are awful for the likely GOP nominee. Working families probably won't be amused to learn Romney — the guy who got rich laying people off, and has been a professional candidate for the last six years — pays a lower tax rate than they do. They'll be even less pleased to know Romney, if elected president, will fight to keep it this way, even when he calls for tax increases on those struggling most.

"Remember when Rachel Maddow compared Romney to Thurston Howell III? It was well grounded."

You really want this guy as your president?