Jack & Jill Politics

Romney: the $42 million man

Rod Dreher

Details about Mr. Romney’s tax payments, wealth and income will inevitably be compared with similar disclosures already made by Mr. Gingrich, as well the man Mr. Romney and Mr. Gingrich hope to unseat, President Obama.

Mr. Gingrich, who on Saturday won the Republican presidential primary in South Carolina, released his own tax returns last week showing that he and his wife, Callista, had an adjusted gross income of $3,162,424 from their various business ventures in 2010. They paid $994,708 in federal tax, according to the return, for an effective tax rate of 31.7 percent.

Mr. Obama and his wife, Michelle, released their tax returns in April, showing an adjusted gross income of $1,728,096 for 2010 — much of it from sales of his books “Dreams From My Father” and “The Audacity of Hope.” The Obamas paid $453,770 in federal taxes, for an effective tax rate of 26.3 percent.

……………………………………….

In a time of crushing economic pressure on the middle and working classes, we are asked to consider voting for a man whose household took in nearly 800 times the median US income over two years, and who was taxed on that income at a far lower rate than Americans who earned their income through labor.

Is that right? Is that fair? In a time in this country’s life in which income inequality is greater than at any time since the Great Depression, the top two Republicans in this race are Romney, a fantastically rich man who benefited handsomely from this tax law, as do many people in his class, and who proposes no rise in the capital gains rate for the superrich (though he sensibly supports eliminating it for those making $200,000 or less); and Gingrich, a man who proposes reducing the capital gains rate to zero.

This is the Republican Party today. See this chart based on CBO data: everybody’s income is fairly stagnant, and has been for a long time — except for the superrich, who are rocketing into the income stratosphere. No wonder, given the times, that Romney doesn’t want to have this conversation.

Why shouldn’t conservatives have this conversation among ourselves? What, exactly, is conservative about a tax system stacked so that the ultrarich make massive profits from it, while working men and women pay a much higher rate on their income? Is the essence of conservatism protecting the privileges of the few at the expense of the many? If so, we lose. We are not egalitarians, and justice doesn’t require economic leveling. But soaking the rich isn’t what we’re talking about here; we’re talking about making them pay the same rate of tax as most ordinary people. You’re not supposed to talk about this on the Right, but why not? Why is this a question only liberals and Democrats are allowed to ask?

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/2012/01/24/romney-the-42-million-man/

I swear someone had nailed it: he paid more to the church than to the country  he wants to be elected PRESIDENT.

…………………………………..

Romney Gave More To Mormon Church Than He Paid In Taxes In 2010

By Zack Ford on Jan 24, 2012 at 10:10 am

Mitt Romney has never hidden the fact that he has a promised tithe to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, but according to his tax returns released today, he gives back more to the Mormons than he pays to the federal government. Since 2010, the Romneys have given $7 million to charity, but over $4 million of that went directly to the Mormon Church, while they paid only $3 million to the IRS last year.

The Mormon Church is notoriously anti-gay, having raised an estimated $22 million in support of California’s Proposition 8 in 2008, in addition to providing close to 90 percent of the early door-to-door volunteers advocating for the discriminatory measure. Because of blowback from this effort, LDS has been less aggressive in anti-gay campaigns, although just last week church leaders endorsed Minnesota’s marriage discrimination amendment. Some have questioned whether its involvement in ballot measures should compromise the church’s tax-exempt status and there is an on-going petition calling on the IRS to revoke it.

Though Romney never specifically endorsed Prop 8 aside from opposing same-sex marriage in general, the Church’s success in passing the measure may have helped advance his credibility among social conservatives.

http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2012/01/24/410051/romney-gave-more-to-mormon-church-than-he-paid-in-taxes-in-2010/

African American women see their own challenges mirrored in Michelle Obama’s

By Krissah Thompson and Vanessa Williams, Published: January 23

As black women watch Michelle Obama on the national stage, they search — sometimes nervously — for nuances often lost on the larger culture. How she handles criticism, how she raises her children, even her style of dress, has the potential to counter negative stereotypes.

“She is mainstreaming to the world what a lot of us already know about ourselves,” says Dacenta Grice, a 37-year-old black woman who works as a physician assistant in Atlanta. “She reinforces the reality that so many of us live. She is a black woman who just seems fantastic in her own right, who just seems like every day people and is relatable.”

In a nationwide survey conducted by The Washington Post and the Kaiser Family Foundation, black women described themselves as relating to Michelle Obama and sensing that she understands them.

Nearly eight out of 10 black women say they personally identify with the first lady, and when asked to give a one-word description of Obama, among the words most commonly used were “intelligent,” “strong” and “classy.”

In follow-up interviews, black women say the first lady’s racial and gender identity are essential to the deep connection they feel they have to her. They call her a role model, someone familiar to them — like a sister or aunt.

That emotional stake makes watching Obama navigate the world stage both “thrilling and terrifying,” says Melissa Harris-Perry, a professor of political science at Tulane University who has written about the first lady’s impact on black women.

“Every time she flawlessly performs her role as first lady just by being who she is, she shows how extraordinary and exceptional we are,” says Harris-Perry, who is in her late 30s. “It is really fun to watch. It feels like, yes! Oh, this can never be denied.

“But every time she is booed at a NASCAR rally, the terrifying reality emerges that it will take so little for the love and admiration of Michelle Obama to go away. Anything she does that is construed as negative or stereotype-reinforcing will undoubtedly be held against us.”

In fact, the positive views of Michelle Obama cut across racial lines — with three-fourths of white women and two-thirds of white men saying they have a favorable impression of her. Other sharp contrasts do emerge in the Post-Kaiser poll between black and white women’s opinions of the first lady. Nearly nine in 10 black women say that the first lady understands their problems, compared with about half of white women. And nearly nine in 10 black women say she shares their values, compared with about six in 10 white women.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/african-american-women-see-their-own-struggles-mirrored-in-michelle-obamas/2012/01/19/gIQA5k4DMQ_story.html

January 24, 2012 10:30 AM 

Taking its toll on Romney’s reputation
 By Steve Benen

We talked over the weekend about Mitt Romney’s “likability problem” — the more voters see him, the less popular he becomes. As the campaign progresses, this appears to be getting worse.

The number of Americans with negative views of Mitt Romney has
spiked in a new Washington Post-ABC News poll, compounding the former Massachusetts governor’s challenges as he tries to rally from Saturday’s big loss in South Carolina.

Among independents, Romney’s unfavorable rating now tops 50 percent — albeit by a single point — a first in Post-ABC polling back to 2006. Just two weeks ago, more independents had favorable than unfavorable views of Romney; now, it’s 2 to 1 negative.

Romney’s losses since a Post-ABC poll conducted between the Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primary are not limited to independents. The number of Democrats viewing him unfavorably is up 10 percentage points, and among his fellow Republicans, negative ratings have jumped from 18 to 32 percent. (Prior to his Iowa performance, Romney’s unfavorable number had been higher than 18, but hadn’t been in the 30s among Republicans since early 2008.)

What’s striking is the speed with which this is happening. Just two weeks ago, Romney had a higher favorable than unfavorable rating. Now, the unfavorable number has soared, going from 34% to 49% in 16 days.

For much of the Republican establishment, the argument has been that Romney is a much stronger general-election candidate because Gingrich is so unpopular with the American mainstream. But as of now, the two leading GOP candidates have nearly identical fav/unfav numbers: 31/49 for Romney, 29/51 for Gingrich.

There are competing theories to explain Romney’s deteriorating standing — the criticisms of his work at Bain, his stilted persona, greater public awareness of his dramatic flip-flops, his shameless dishonesty, etc. — and it’s likely a combination of factors. Regardless, it’s tough to see these polls and think an extended nomination fight is in Romney’s best interests.

In the meantime, President Obama’s favorability rating — not his approval rating, just those with a positive impression of him — is now up to 53%, the highest it’s been since April 2011. That’s not what Team Romney wanted to see, either.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal/2012_01/taking_its_toll_on_romneys_rep034956.php

January 24, 2012 2:05 PM

 Losing a 23-point lead in a week

 By Steve Benen

As recently as Jan. 15 — nine days ago — Gallup’s daily tracking poll showed Mitt Romney leading Newt Gingrich by 23 points. In fact, a day earlier, Gallup showed Gingrich running third, a point behind Rick Santorum.

And as of today, Gallup has Gingrich leading Romney by four, 31% to 27%. The pollster published this image this afternoon:

This really is astounding. Romney’s national support has dropped 10 points in nine days — not because of any new scandal or humiliating gaffe, but because his support was fairly tepid and weak, and voters decided were easily swayed away.

For the record, I still believe Romney is the frontrunner and likely nominee, in large part because of his financial and organizational edge. I also believe Romney has demonstrated an ability to destroy Gingrich once — remember when the former Speaker had a big lead in Iowa, right before Romney spent millions to tear him down — and will likely do so again.

But when a frontrunner sees a 23-point lead evaporate this quickly, the ripples of panic in Republican circles are well justified.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal/2012_01/losing_a_23point_lead_in_a_wee034969.php

Romney’s Layabout America by BooManTue Jan 24th, 2012 at 11:20:06 AM ESTThe Christian Science Monitor reports on Mitt Romney’s tax returns and it paints an interesting picture of what it’s like to be unemployed in contemporary America:
Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney paid about $3 million in federal income taxes in 2010, having earned more than seven times that — $21.7 million — from his investments and making him among the wealthiest of American taxpayers. At the same time, Romney gave nearly $3 million to charity — about half of that amount to the Mormon Church — which helped lower his effective tax rate to a modest 14 percent, according to records his campaign released early Tuesday. For 2011, he’ll pay about $3.2 million with an effective tax rate of about 15.4 percent, the campaign said.
I don’t think Romney has earned an actual paycheck since he left the governor’s corner office in Boston. He’s been a bum and a deadbeat since January 4, 2007. As for private sector work, other than some stuff he did for the Olympics (does that count?) he’s been a shiftless layabout since he left Bain Capital in 1999.
And, yet, he somehow manages to pocket in excess of $20 million a year for doing absolutely nothing productive. He’s just a parasite on society who goes around the country badmouthing people with actual jobs, like the president.
And the best part is that this freeloading loafer pays 15% on his “income” while hardworking people like Newt Gingrich pay 31%.
So, what does this idling shirker have to teach us about job creation? In Romney’s America, do we all get to sit around doing nothing while checks roll in? Who will be left to fix our cars or replace the seawater pump impeller on our yachts?
I kid, but really, not. http://www.boomantribune.com/story/2012/1/24/11206/3864

January 24, 2012 11:15 AM 

‘Self-deportation’

 By Steve Benen

A couple of months ago, Romney campaign spokesperson Eric Fehrnstrom was asked what a Romney administration would do with undocumented immigrants currently living in the United States. Fehrnstrom said Romney “doesn’t believe in granting them amnesty,” but when asked what Romney sees as an alternative, the campaign spokesperson would only say, “He would not grant them amnesty.”

Team Romney was comfortable saying what they’re against, but not
what they’re for. It wasn’t exactly illuminating.

Last night, Adam Smith, the political editor at the Tampa Bay Times, asked the former governor a good question: “You say you don’t want to go and round up people and deport them, but you also say that they would have to go back to their home countries and then apply for citizenship. So, if you don’t deport them, how do you send them home?”

Romney replied, “Well, the answer is self-deportation.”

And what, exactly, does that mean? Adam Serwer explained that the point is to make life so miserable for these immigrants that they simply leave on their own.

This is the right-wing’s answer to the question of how you deport eleven million unauthorized immigrants: You don’t. You force them to “deport themselves.” Although immigration reform advocates would prefer a solution that involves a path to citizenship for unauthorized immigrants already here, Romney and his top immigration advisers believe they can remove millions of people through heavy-handed enforcement that makes life for unauthorized immigrants intolerable. This approach is notable for its complete lack of discretion and flexibility. Unauthorized immigrant parents with citizen children who need to go to school? Americans who are married to an undocumented immigrant who needs medical treatment? “Self-deportation” hits them all with the same mailed fist. […]

[M]ake no mistake, when Romney is discussing “self-deportation,” he’s talking about creating a United States where parents are afraid to register their kids for school or get them immunized because they might be asked for proof of citizenship. He’s talking about the type of country where local police can demand your immigration status based on mere suspicion that you don’t belong around here. “Self-deportation” is just a cleaner, less cruel-sounding way of endorsing harsh, coercive government policies in order to make life for unauthorized immigrants so unbearable that they have no choice but to find some way to leave.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal/2012_01/selfdeportation034957.php

If this @#$% goes down:

Obama to Use Pension Funds of Ordinary Americans to Pay for Bank Mortgage “Settlement”

Obama’s latest housing market chicanery should come as no
surprise. As we discuss below, he will use the State of the Union
address to announce a mortgage “settlement” by Federal regulators, and
at least some state attorneys general. It’s yet another gambit designed
to generate a campaign talking point while making the underlying
problem worse.
The president seems to labor under the misapprehension that crimes by
members of the elite must be swept under the rug because prosecuting
them would destablize the system. What he misses is that we are well
past the point where coverups will work, and they may even blow up
before the November elections. If nothing else, his settlement pact has a
non-trivial Constitutional problem which the Republicans, if they are
smart, will use to undermine the deal and discredit the Administration.
To add insult to injury, Obama is apparently going to present his belated Christmas present to the banking industry as a boon to ordinary citizens.
He refused to appoint a real middle class advocate, Elizabeth Warren,
to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, but he’s not above stealing
her talking points.
We and other commentators have discussed how the mortgage settlement
negotiations nominally led by Iowa attorney general Tom Miller had
descended into farce. Almost nothing the Miller camp said was
believable. They were presented as “attorney general” discussions when
the Administration was pulling the strings. They’ve described a deal as
weeks away for over a year. They kept claiming that they had undertaken
investigations when not a single subpoena was issued by the AGs still
involved in the negotiations. They’ve argued from the get go that a pact
will be good for homeowners when the deal reached by under-resourced
Nevada attorney general Catherine Cortez Masto with a single servicer,
Saxon, resulted in a payout that is 10 to 20 times what the
Administration is calling a victory. And that assumes that the banks
will live up to their side of the deal when past settlements of
servicing abuses have shown that they don’t.
The administration has finally woken up to the fact that the housing
mess is almost certain to get worse before it gets better, and Obama
must therefore be armed with better propaganda. The Miller-led talks
have become a bit of an embarrassment and needed to be put out of their
misery. So Team Obama and Federal banking regulators have agreed on
terms and as we discussed last Friday, are upping the pressure on state attorneys general to fall into line. As reported by Shahien Nasiripour of the Financial Times:
Banks and government negotiators have cleared a big
hurdle in efforts to resolve allegations of widespread mortgage-related
misdeeds, agreeing on terms for a settlement that are being circulated
to the 50 US states for approval, state officials and a bank
representative say.

The proposed pact would potentially reduce mortgage balances and
monthly payments by more than $25bn for distressed US homeowners…

State prosecutors have already received a set of documents detailing
new mortgage servicing standards that the banks and the government
negotiators have agreed to. The states were also being sent documents
detailing other main components of the deal, such as the liability
release for the banks, the so-called “menu” of options describing the
various forms of aid to be given to borrowers, as well as the precise
language of the so-called “most favoured nation” clause, which spells
out how participating states in the deal would be eligible to receive
more advantageous terms should a holdout state strike a more favourable
deal on its own with the five targeted banks.
The story did not outline terms, but previous leaks have indicated
that the bulk of the supposed settlement would come not in actual monies
paid by the banks (the cash portion has been rumored at under $5
billion) but in credits given for mortgage modifications for principal
modifications. There are numerous reasons why that stinks. The biggest
is that servicers will be able to count modifying first mortgages that
were securitized toward the total. Since one of the cardinal rules of
finance is to use other people’s money rather than your own, this
provision virtually guarantees that investor-owned mortgages will be the
ones to be restructured. Why is this a bad idea? The banks are NOT
required to write down the second mortgages that they have on their
books. This reverses the contractual hierarchy that junior lienholders
take losses before senior lenders. So this deal amounts to a
transfer from pension funds and other fixed income investors to the
banks, at the Administration’s instigation.
Another reason the modification provision is poorly structured is
that the banks are given a dollar target to hit. That means they will
focus on modifying the biggest mortgages. So help will go to a
comparatively small number of grossly overhoused borrowers, no doubt
reinforcing the “profligate borrower” meme.
But those criticisms assume two other things: that the program is
actually implemented. The experience with past consent decrees in the
mortgage space is that the servicers get a legal get out of jail free
card, a release, and do not hold up their end of the deal. Similarly,
we’ve seen bank executives swear in front of Congress in late 2010 that
they had stopped robosigning, which turned out to be a brazen lie.
So here, odds favor that servicers will pretty much do nothing except
perhaps be given credit for mortgage modifications they would have made
anyhow.
There are two clever features of the deal, but neither look intended
to benefit ordinary citizens. One is that the deal throws some funding
at chronically cash stressed mortgage counselors. They are thus certain
to voice approval of the pact. The other is (per the FT story) the
deal’s “most favored nations clause” is designed to reduce the
bargaining leverage of any AGs that go their own way. It means that any
servicer will have the incentive to fight hard against giving any state a
better deal because it will automagically trigger improved terms across
the states that signed on to the Federal deal. But this may have
interesting perverse effects, since banks that refuse to settle with
breakaway AGs will ultimately have damages awarded by a court. That
means longer and most costly fights by the states, but in most cases,
ultimately bigger awards (frankly, the fact set is so bad that all the
state AGs need to do is focus on fairly conservative legal theories to
have good odds of scoring big wins).
Dave Dayen seemed to think that the AG rebellion was likely to stay firm, given how few of the Democrats were going to Chicago on Monday
for an arm-twisting meeting with HUD head Shaun Donovan and an unnamed
emissary from the Department of Justice. I would not be so certain. With
states so budget starved, I don’t see how anyone can justify sending a
live body to Chicago when a phone briefing would work just as well. More
important, the most favored nation clause is nasty, and may nudge some
fence-sitters over the line.
And I have also been told that Donovan was on the Hill late last week
pressuring Congressmen to support the deal. Since this is a regulatory
measure that does not require Congressional approval, this move is meant
to deprive dissenting state AGs from any support in local media from
sympathetic Congressmen. For instance, 31 California representatives
wrote the Justice Department, the Federal Reserve and the Office of
the Comptroller of the Currency calling on them to “investigate
possible violations of law or regulations by financial institutions in
their handling of delinquent mortgages, mortgage modifications and
foreclosures.” Clearly they could be expected to support California
attorney general Kamala Harris’ withdrawal of the deal. Donovon is
trying to get them and like minded solons speaking from the Obama
script.
But the Administration’s scheme may not be playing out according to
script. Senator Sherrod Brown sent a letter last week to associate
attorney general Thomas Perelli, Donovan, the CFPB’s Richard Cordray and
Tom Miller criticizing the settlement pact. It could have been written by Naked Capitalism readers. Key section:

Now while Republicans may relish the specter of Democrats infighting,
the fact is no one is going to want to be seen to be undermining the
leader of the party in an election year. So that will put a damper on
how aggressive the opponents will be. And media outlets have been
amplifying Obama’s efforts to take credit for gravity. For instance, the
Administration is touting the fall in foreclosures as an indicator of
success when their policies have ranged from do nothing to disasters
like HAMP. The fall in foreclosures is actually a sign of failure, as
banks are attenuating the process more and more, in some cases due to
their inability to come up with necessary documentation, in others out
of a desire to wring even more fees out of investors (when a borrower
can’t pay, the bank’s fees come first out of the eventual sale of the
house).
Either a Gingrich nomination or Romney getting too dented during
Republican primary fights increase the odds of what heretofore seemed
impossible: an Obama win in November. So if the Republicans were smart,
they’d take advantage of a serious weakness in this deal: that it
violates the 5th Amendment takings clause. I am told by Bill Frey of
Greenwich Financial that a servicer safe harbor provision in HAMP, which
was supposed to shield servicers from investor lawsuits over mortgage
modifications, was passed by both the House and Senate but was removed
in reconciliation because that provision would have run afoul of the 5th
Amendment. This settlement is intended to have servicers engage in even
more aggressive mortgage modifications and would thus seem to have
precisely the same Constitutional problem.
As I urged last week, please call your state attorney general and
tell them you think taking from your pension to enrich banks for abusing
homeowners is a lousy idea and they should therefore refuse to sign on
to the settlement. You can find their phone numbers here. Please call today if you haven’t already. Thanks!
http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2012/01/obama-to-give-banks-mortgage-get-out-of-jail-almost-free-card-pressures-state-attorneys-generals-to-capitulate.html

(keeping in mind that the Republicans claim the MSM is Liberal)

Ahead of State of the Union, rating Obama’s past promises
http://nbcpolitics.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/01/24/10225410-ahead-of-state-of-the-union-rating-obamas-past-promises?GT1=43001

**interesting comments – 34 pages and counting**

Romney’s Layabout America

by BooMan

Tue Jan 24th, 2012 at 11:20:06 AM EST

The Christian Science Monitor reports on Mitt Romney’s tax returns and it paints an interesting picture of what it’s like to be unemployed in contemporary America:

Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney paid about $3 million in federal income taxes in 2010, having earned more than seven times that — $21.7 million — from his investments and making him among the wealthiest of American taxpayers.

At the same time, Romney gave nearly $3 million to charity — about half of that amount to the Mormon Church — which helped lower his effective tax rate to a modest 14 percent, according to records his campaign released early Tuesday.

For 2011, he’ll pay about $3.2 million with an effective tax rate of about 15.4 percent, the campaign said.

I don’t think Romney has earned an actual paycheck since he left the governor’s corner office in Boston. He’s been a bum and a deadbeat since January 4, 2007. As for private sector work, other than some stuff he did for the Olympics (does that count?) he’s been a shiftless layabout since he left Bain Capital in 1999.

And, yet, he somehow manages to pocket in excess of $20 million a year for doing absolutely nothing productive. He’s just a parasite on society who goes around the country badmouthing people with actual jobs, like the president.

And the best part is that this freeloading loafer pays 15% on his “income” while hardworking people like Newt Gingrich pay 31%.

So, what does this idling shirker have to teach us about job creation? In Romney’s America, do we all get to sit around doing nothing while checks roll in? Who will be left to fix our cars or replace the seawater pump impeller on our yachts?

I kid, but really, not.

http://www.boomantribune.com/story/2012/1/24/11206/3864

January 24, 2012

Has it come to this?

The Wall Street Journal editorial is titled “The Gingrich Challenge,” thus named, I imagine, after rejecting the sincerer headline, “Never Let Them See Us Sweat.” The editorial’s sangfroid is admirable, if not laughable, leaving me to additionally imagine only the quantity of brandy snifters consumed in the course of its exquisitely painful composition.

What has resulted from Newt Gingrich’s South Carolina victory? Mayhem? Chaos? Gentlemen GOPers leaping from Wall Street’s glass and steel, ten stories up? No, no. A “useful uproar,” that’s what. You know, just as the uproar amidst 1968 Chicago was useful. Hey, when one makes a most agreeable living by writing unapologetic horseshit for the privileged classes, the sturdier stuff of a stiff upper lip is on occasion required.

And stiff indeed is the editorialist’s lip. I quote with supreme amusement:

As for the GOP establishment, such as it still is, Mr. Gingrich’s re-emergence is likely to cause a panic attack. They don’t believe he is electable. [Merely because he most assuredly is not?] Our advice would be to relax and let the voters decide.

Good grief, has it really come to that? Letting the vast, unwashed proletariat decide?

“Watson, the needle.”

http://pmcarpenter.blogs.com/p_m_carpenters_commentary/

What a bunch of SHYT.  I will retire in 1-2 years.  I will then start collecting S.S. and living off my 401(k) and the income off my investments.  Thats right – i will not be “working”.  I will be an “idling shirker”.  JJP should stop posting the above crap and boomantribune is full of hyperbolic partisan crap.

Wanna talk about yachts:  http://bostonherald.com/track/inside_track/view/20100724john_kerry_will_pay_if_taxes_are_owed
here is a nice pic of John Kerry’s yacht -but i guess its OK ’cause he married “old” money.