Hillary, Paul and Donald and the Further Decline of American Democracy

The GOP has led the attack on Democracy in so many ways, it is surprising that their voting base has not noticed.  Perhaps they are too ignorant to notice or maybe in their deepest, darkest thoughts, they knowingly go along with it.

A few of the many examples of GOP actions against Democracy exist such as legislating unnecessary voting rights restrictions,  eliminating discussion of gun control legislation, preventing the staffing of the Supreme Court and other judge appointments, legislating against the civil rights act, violating citizen protections of the constitution, preventing certain minorities from getting health insurance and the obstruction of the normal functioning of the federal government.  The GOP fight with the government has been a fight against the rights of ordinary American citizens and against Democracy.

Hillary Clinton

Some may think that Hillary Clinton is not an ordinary citizen, and in many ways she is not, but she is also protected by those same rights found in our constitution as any other American.  Today, after a long and controversial investigation regarding her handling of a private server and classified emails, the FBI has found that there was no "intent" to commit a crime.  In such cases, the FBI considers not only the act that occurred, but also the element of "intent.  Without both of these clearly identified, there is no possibility of charges being brought against her.

Paul Ryan

In a statement he presented after the announcement by the FBI Director James Comey, Paul Ryan advocated for prosecution of citizens without just cause.  Ryan stated that not prosecuting Clinton would set a "terrible precedent."  In reality, what Ryan calls for would set the terrible precedent.  Imagine a government official calling for the prosecution of a person based on Republican suspicion.  This eliminates the rule of law which Comey describes and instead institutes a lynch mob mentality based on suspicion.

Donald Drumpf

Someone else in the Republican party has previously mentioned a similar thing when it comes to capturing and killing the family of ISIS terrorists.  That person is the presumptive Presidential nominee and leader of the Republican party, Donald Trump.  Needless to say, Republican leaders everywhere agree with Paul Ryan, and although many secretly also agree with Donald Trump, are not so stupid as to show their true colors to the American people as Donald Trump seems to be.  I don't have to tell you how Donald Trump reacted to Comey's statement, but it was just as self-serving as Ryan's, albeit with more third grade words and aggression.

No one in the Republican leadership has called out Paul Ryan for encouraging a lynch mob mentality because his attitude towards Hillary Clinton is shared by them.  This should give us concern since it shows that the current Republican leadership is willing to turn against our constitution and bend law to their own view of it.  This likely means that they will be willing to support a President Trump's view of Democracy and may set us up for the re-incarnation of an American Hitler President.

It's time for the Republican citizenry to begin to see their leaders for who they really are.  They are no longer the Republicans of the past.  They are no longer reasonable.  They are no longer trustworthy.  Only the base of the Republican party can bring Republicanism back to reality since the leadership and Donald Trump has failed you.

Are you misguided, uniformed, heartless or rich? Then you must vote Republican.

Elections for many political offices will be occurring this fall.  The winners of these elections will be responsible for future legislation in federal and state governments that will control our daily lives.

The upcoming mid-term elections are not insignificant nor typical.  One could say that these mid-term elections are the most important election of our time.  The future of our American society could be in the balance.

The Congressional elections for the federal House and Senate could reinforce Republican obstruction or eliminate it, depending on the results.  State elections could make life or death differences to many who cannot receive medical care under Republican obstructed medicaid expansion.

To help you remember or to just inform some of you for the first time, of some of the deleterious effects of having Republicans in office, let me recall some things you should know by now.

America's unemployed work force could be put back to work if the President's American Jobs Act is enacted without Republican obstruction.

Women could become equal in the workforce if legislation to prevent discrimination in wages was lifted by removing Republican obstruction.

America's immigrant families could receive fairer treatment if Republicans could not prevent it.

Opportunity for all Americans and America's economic condition could be improved with an increase in the minimum wage which Republicans refuse to support.

The unfair control of government realized by the few uber-rich American contributors to the Republican party who influence their legislation and activities could be eliminated.

The American worker and middle class could rise in importance and our government could be "of, for and by the people" again.

Poor children would go to bed less hungry if Republican cuts to the SNAP program were eliminated and reversed.

Falsely imposed voting restrictions could be stopped if Republicans were run out of state legislatures.

The Republican party's partisan witch-hunts based on false  accusations would stop being the focus of the Congress and taxpayer money could be used more productively for legislation that Americans need if Republicans lost control of the House.

America would never again renege on their debt obligations if Republicans are not given the power to cause it.

Dealing with scientific facts, the government could make more reasonable decisions to enact laws that protect our environment if Republicans were not in control.

Near treasonous acts that show Republican leadership's opposition to government would end.

Using fear tactics and lies to persuade Americans into voting against their own self interest could end if Republicans are shown that using those unethical tactics cannot win them elections.

The federal government may never face another shutdown if Republicans were not in control.

The Affordable Care Act might be allowed to continue to benefit people; improve the health of America; put money back into the economy with increased jobs in health services; improve the profits of medical device manufacturers, hospitals, doctors, nurses and insurance companies while at the same time making healthcare affordable.

Expanding Medicaid in Republican run states would insure and protect the health of over seven million uninsured poor voters and reduce costs for taxpayers whose premiums are higher in order to cover the costs of those who do not have health insurance.  Hospitals in rural areas of Republican run states could become profitable again and re-open their doors.

America's tax policies could be reviewed and certain unfair loop-holes closed so that all Americans and American Corporations pay their fair share of taxes and revenue could again become part of the equation for budget considerations if  Republicans did not control the federal House.

Ultimately, the mid-term elections are  extremely important.  You should consider this as important an election as a Presidential one and get out to vote. 

If you consider yourself a Republican, perhaps you have inherited that title or been influenced to vote as one from your parents and grandparents whose culture of Republicanism goes back many years.  You should recognize that political parties change over time and may not be the same as the party your parents or grandparents aligned with.  For example, Abraham Lincoln was a Republican who freed the slaves yet some modern day Republicans pass legislation to restrict voting rights to African-Americans.  In regards to empathy toward others, Republicans have changed dramatically.

A political party affiliation should not be treated the same as your genetically inherited characteristics. Although "mutation" is a similarity between genetics and political parties, your party affiliation should be based on how closely a comparison of the overall beliefs and policies of the party match your own personal beliefs.  The comparison should not be limited to one or two policies but to all policies and beliefs so you get a complete picture of a party.  For example, Republican leaders claim to hold to the teachings of Christianity because they support a right to life but their legislation may indicate that they oppose Christianity since they do not support the needy and carry out injustices to other diverse populations.

In order to make such comparisons you should research the facts about the political party's policies; understand how they vote on issues and determine if they represent your views.  It is important to determine these things by reviewing factual reference material while ignoring commentators or others who would attempt to deceive you or are just misinformed themselves.  One way this can be done is by reviewing government web sites such as http://www.house.gov, http://bls.gov and http://www.senate.com.  

To keep informed on current events in politics, watch political television shows on both sides of politics and judge for yourself which is most truthful.  For example, Fox News is known to be conservative television that takes a less factual "entertainment" approach to supporting Republican causes while MSNBC is known to be progressive news reporting that supports Democratic causes.  Seeing these two networks present both sides of the same issue can be enlightening. 

Paul Ryan (R) Wisconsin

That being said, I want to begin analyzing Republicanism with one of the most telling subjects in recent days; the 2014 Republican budget proposal.  It has been said that you can tell where a party's priorities are by the budget they propose.  

Paul Ryan was tasked with the job of preparing a Republican budget proposal that balanced within ten years.  Balancing a budget can be done in many ways, but the Republican budget had to be based on Republican principles which molded and forced the end result.  

One building block of that Republican budget is that tax revenue cannot be increased.  Without new revenue, only cuts in federal programs would be possible. 

Another prerequisite was that military spending must be increased. Increasing military spending without raising taxes means something else must be cut by the amount of increase in military spending.  About $650 billion is spent on the United States military each year which exceeds the combined military spending of the next ten highest spending countries in the world.  Even the US military has stated that the amount is too high and can be reduced.  When Republicans speak of military spending they do not mean government assistance for veterans.  They do mean to increase the wealth of defense contractors.

Yet another prerequisite of the Republican budget is that much of the cost and operation of Federal government programs must be passed on to the states.  Making states take on safety net programs will force them to either increase their taxes (if they plan to continue to provide the service) or cut or eliminate the programs.  In Republican run states I can state almost certainly that these services will be cut.  Overall, their budget expects that the financial burden that they are eliminating from the federal government should be placed on the states.  Provided the states maintain the programs, the savings to the individual would be no different than if the federal government had kept the financial burden except that the taxes would be coming from the state instead of the federal government.

The Ryan budget makes severe cuts to services that support the poor, middle class, students, the elderly and disabled while at the same time rewarding the rich with lower taxes, repealing the alternative minimum tax, reducing corporate tax, and changing international tax laws to allow corporations to avoid being taxed on foreign income brought back into the United States.

By the explanation he gives in his budget's narrative, Ryan tries to convince people that government loans are the reason that students must pay such high tuition costs as these somehow encourage Universities to charge higher tuitions.  Even if this were true, Ryan's solution is to reduce government loans and cap Pell Grants for students, thereby eliminating help some deserving students might be able to obtain without a government loan.  It's funny how Republican reasoning often defies logic.  They accept big business' action of  charging higher tuitions as reasonable given the availability of government money and instead blame the federal government for providing so much loan money.  I guess we are supposed to understand as our Republican leaders do, that the ethics of businessmen can readily be overcome by such easy opportunity for profit.

Sticking to the Republican claims that the Affordable Care Act is the worst thing that could happen to America, his budget calls for the repeal of the ACA leaving no alternative but to return to the way it was before the ACA.   The budget calls for repealing Medicaid Expansion and eliminating healthcare premium subsidies available on the government healthcare exchange.  With these words, Republicans are saying that insurers can deny coverage to people with pre-existing conditions, so if you lose your job and have a pre-existing condition, you will no longer have health insurance.  They remove healthcare access from millions of the poor who are now covered under medicaid expansion.  Lifetime coverage caps will return so if you get a debilitating and costly disease you may also lose your life savings.  If you have limited income, you will no longer get any help to pay for your insurance premiums.  Certain free services will once again be charged.  Children between 21 and 25 will lose their parent's insurance and be required to purchase their own or not be insured.

Medicare and social security will not be the same for  future seniors.  Not being capable of funding social programs almost certainly means medicare and social security will suffer under Republican rule.

There are many more aspects to the budget that you should see for yourself.  Visit this link: The 2014 Republican Budget to find the actual text.

If you are not in the top 2% financially, voting for Republicans is not in your best interest.  If you are a caring person, voting for Republicans should outrage you.  If you are an informed and intelligent person and not in the 2%, you should never vote Republican.  What does that make you?

Remember to vote in the fall's midterm elections.  It's your protected right and it's what will make all the difference to America.

How Republicans plan to transform the President's budget into the Paul Ryan budget

Republicans in Congress still can't seem to realize that their Party did not win the Presidency in 2012.  And by that I mean they still do not understand and do not represent the expectations of the American people.

One example of this is HR 444 REQUIRE A PLAN Act that was discussed today in the House.

Parenthetically the Act also adds the insulting attack remark erroneously directed towards the President, that it can also be called the "Require Presidential Leadership and No Deficit Act."  My guess is that the Republicans see leadership as making strong cuts into social programs to hurt the Americans who can least afford it and who most depend on it.  This would follow right in step with the Ryan budget and Republicans misguided thinking that revenue is off the table in budget talks.

Mr. Price

The Act introduced by Republican Mr. PRICE of Georgia (for himself, Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin, Ms. JENKINS, and Mr. SESSIONS) requires that, "if the President’s fiscal year 2014 budget does not achieve balance in a fiscal year covered by such budget, the President shall submit a supplemental unified budget by April 1, 2013, which identifies a fiscal year in which balance is achieved, and for other purposes."

It goes on to require that the supplemental budget include budget information required by US code but also include the Republicans wish list of items.  These are (a) An estimate of the fiscal year in which the supplemental budget is not expected to result in a deficit; (b) a detailed description of additional policies needed to accomplish no deficit; and (c) detailed description of the differences between the President's FY 2014 budget and the FY2014 supplemental budget requested.

There is no constituional requirement for a President to offer a budget which will balance by some future date.  Since the 1920's there have only been about three occassions where a budget actually did balance.  However Republicans appeared to be confused about the President's intentions.  They made it seem that this was a simple request that would help them understand where the President stands on balancing the budget.  But what are they really trying to do?

The reason that the Republicans imply they are proposing this Act is because the President's actions during his first term have shown he is not a good financial stewart.  The Act's section on "Findings" indicates that the President can't keep to his promises and has caused the deficit to rise during his term.  It's almost as if the President has authority over financial and budgetary policy and total control of the money that he was charged to spend and spent it unwisely.  Oh wait, that is the job of the Congress!

So what are the Republicans really trying to do by placing this Act into consideration?  I think they have a somewhat sinister plan in mind indeed.

CBO estimates of deficit causes

First, they are trying to create an image in the eyes of Americans that removes themselves from any blame they may have for the country's financial condition.  They won't admit  that it was their Party's administration that got us into the financial situation we are in and largely responsible for the deficit.  The graph at the left is the Congressional Budget Office's estimates of the factors leading to the deficit.  One can see that the largest contributors to our present deficit are the wars and Bush era tax cuts.  But deficits were not that important to Republicans when their guy was President.

Republicans pretend to be the only Party concerned with future generations who will be responsible for the deficit's payback.  While he was Mitt Romney's running partner, Paul Ryan's first budget plan would not balance the budget for thirty years.  And that one was considered harmful to the poor in society and the economy because of the magnitude of its cuts to social programs while at the same time cutting taxes for the rich.  Recently Ryan has been tasked by John Boehner to write a budget that will be balanced within ten years. Without considering revenue increases (as the Republicans believe), Ryan's new budget would start hurting people immediately.

It seems to me that with HR 444 and the previously passed HR 325 that temporarily raises the debt limit with stipulations for "No Budget/No Pay", Republicans are trying to force the President into cutting the social safety net, voucher-izing medicare and medicaid and making changes to social security that would not benefit the American worker.  All of these were Romney-Ryan policies that Americans rejected when they ended Romney's political career in the last election.

Ryan's Budget paves the path to
increased Prosperity for the wealthy

Republicans are really putting the cart before the horse if they think that the President can create a supplemental unified budget without Congress first acting on modifying the tax code and closing loop holes. The President cannot know the impact that new revenue will have to paying down the deficit  until Congress acts on tax law.  So once again Congress needs to understand that tax revenue must be considered and they have a more urgent role in addressing that than the President has to give them a supplemental unified budget.

Fortunately some Democrats understand that Republicans are trying to force a budget that looks like the Ryan budget and have added amendments to the Act to counteract this intention.  Unfortunately none of them was allowed during the actual rules committee session.

Mr McGovern of Massachusetts, a member of the committee made it clear that the members were only made aware of HR 444 on Thursday and the act was not entered until Friday last week.  He felt that there was not enough time to enter amendments.  He also made the point that the rules committee did not have any meetings, markups or open discussion around the need for the act and requested that it was entered into open rules.  That was voted down.

Mr Connelly of Virginia had submitted an amendment that prohibits "additional solutions" in the unified supplemental budget to include conversion of Medicare into a voucher program. However that amendment was not allowed.

Mr. Deutch of Florida submitted an amendment that removes social security from the definition of "Unified Budget" however that amendment was not allowed.

Jackson Lee of Texas submitted two amendments.  One protects the safety net of the most vulnerable in society.  It was not allowed.  The other proposes ending the estate and tax provisions so the applicable exclusion amount is allowed to revert to $1 million and the tax rate is allowed to be 55%.  It was not allowed. 

Chris Van Hollen from Maryland submitted an amendment to replace the entire sequester for 2013 which would cause deep cuts to domestic priorities and defense with a savings from specific policies that reflect a balanced approach to deficit reduction.  He wants to protect the most vulnerable and asks people making over $1 million to contribute more.  He wants to eliminate agriculture direct payments and cut subsidies to large oil companies.  Because he was not present due to his father's death, his substitute for sequester was voted down.

An amendment was submitted by Mark Takano of California which makes changes to the "Findings" section of the act.  He wants clarification that Congress holds responsibility for passing budgets and appropriating funds.  A responsibility that some Republicans have attempted to side-step.  That one was allowed.

Four Republican amendments were approved.  All of them require additional work from the Presdient to present more detail in the supplemental unified budget.

President Obama

As the President has stated publicly, like the Republicans, he also understands that the deficit should be brought under control.  Actions taken since his administration started have reduced the Bush deficit each year and the CBO expects that the deficit will be below $800 Billion by the end of 2013.

But in the President's case, his concern is that deficit reduction be done in a balanced approach with revenue increases and program cuts that do not harm the economy, that do not hurt Americans and are done fairly.

The divergence in the President's policies and Republican policies are fairly obvious to middle class Americans.

That's why he won the election.

Dems get high on "smokin" Joe Biden (and that's no malarky)

Vice President Biden

President Obama owes Joe Biden a debt of gratitude tonight because the Vice President's performance in the Vice Presidential debate is sure to widen the gap in the polls between the President and Romney with the President soaring high.

Vice President Biden was fierce.  He never allowed Ryan to make inaccurate claims either about Republican plans or Democratic policies.  He even broke into Ryan's monologue on numerous  questions to call him out on his inaccuracies.  Vice President Biden spelled out the differences between Republican and Democratic policies on every topic presented by the moderator.  Some of those where the differences between the two men were greatest is described below.

He was able to remind viewers of Romney's flip-flops.  He reminded them of Romney's malevolence with 47% of Americans and Ryan's discontent with 30% of them.  He pointed out Romney's outrageous behavior in using the attack on the US embassy in Libya for political gain.  He reminded viewers that Democrats are the guardians of medicare and social security and asked them the question "Who would you trust to protect those institutions...the party that introduced and protected it since its inception or the Party that has been fighting against it since the beginning?"

About Iran, Ryan indicated that the administration's position is weak and giving mixed signals when we supposedly separate ourselves from Israel and say that all options are on the table.  He implied that because of that, Iran was working faster to make a nuclear bomb.  The Vice President challenged Ryan's attack on the administration's policies, showing that the sanctions against Iran are working and supported by our allies across the world.  He gave confidence that the intelligence being supplied to the government about Iran's capabilities with nuclear weapons was accurate and that the United States would never let Iran develop a nuclear bomb.

About the economy, Ryan repeated the claims that the President has had enough time to solve the problems and has not kept his promises of 6% unemployment.  He mislead the conversation by saying that the jobless rate was going in the wrong direction despite the fact that the Obama administration has seen a constant and steady increase in employment since the President took office.  The recent news of the lowest unemployment rate since 2008 did not seem to make an impression on Ryan, or he didn't believe it.  He gave no specifics on how a Romney Presidency would improve the jobs situation other than the empty promise encapsulated in Romney's speeches about reducing the tax burden on the job creators.  Biden noted that if they (Republicans) were in favor of improving the economy perhaps they should not stand in the way of the American Jobs Act offered by President Obama or perhaps they should allow the middle class tax break to go through without holding it hostage to a tax break for the wealthiest of Americans.

Viewers never got to understand the details of Romney's tax plan and supposed elimination of tax loopholes because Ryan could not give any solid examples.  He only stated that they had a framework of 20% across the board tax cuts.  We never got to see the math.

On defense spending, Ryan went on about proposed cuts by the Democrats that would weaken the military.  Vice President Biden made it clear that the joint chiefs of staff do not want or need the kind of military budget that Romney is proposing.  Further he made it clear that the cuts in military spending and other government budgets are required now as the result of an agreement that the Republicans wanted if the super committee could not agree on budget deductions being worked on earlier this year.

In a modified view of abortion, Ryan indicated that Romney would be against abortion except in cases of rape, incest or health of the mother.  These conditions were never part of Romney's recent policies and do not abide with the Republican platform.  Vice President Biden noted the change in policy and indicated that he agrees with the right to life on a personal level, but he would never impose his personal beliefs on others whose faith or beliefs may oppose his.  He reminded us that a Party's belief in that area should not violate existing laws or require the government to interfere with or control women's health issues. He added that a Romney Presidency would likely select Supreme court judges (two of whom may be retired during the next President's term) who would support Romney's view on abortion rights.  Romney has declared that he is going to defund Planned Parenthood and repeal Roe v Wade during his Presidency.

"Smokin" Joe Biden did the job that Obama needed him to do.  The bounce in election polls is sure to follow.  Way to go Joe!

Before the VP debates: My assessment of how it will go

Remember the first Presidential debate?  President Obama was put into a state of shock by the abrupt policy changes Mitt Romney decided to take effect immediately as of that debate night.  The President failed to call Romney on these and because of that, led some uniformed voters to see Romney's enthusiastic lies as facts.  Even though the Republican Campaign Committee has taken much of what he said back, the President has paid for his failure to respond to Romney's claims by loss of support in the polls.

It appears that Romney's exaggerated policy changes were just another move in this "chess game" for  the Presidency.  Being so far behind in the polls and having had so much bad press about his actions, words and deeds in this campaign, my guess is that Romney's campaign decided that they had nothing to lose and everything to gain by lying to voters to soften Romney's conservative views and improve his appeal to undecided voters.  After all, you have to win the Presidency first before you can carry out your actual policies.

Ryan

Biden

Tonight Vice President Biden and Congressman Ryan are debating each other.  I have to cite some of the differences that I think will make the first VP debate more honest and a better read of actual stances of the two contestants that voters can use to compare them.

Even though they are offensive to many voters, Paul Ryan believes that his policies are correct.  Having a somewhat slanted view of reality based on his faith in Ayn Rand's teachings, Ryan strongly believes in survival of the fittest.  Bill Clinton has aptly named this the "you're on your own" policy.  This belief system leads to such Ryan policies as removing the social safety net from the least fortunate Americans by cutting budgets for those services.  It leads to his desire to change social security into a privatized business.  It leads to Ryan's policies to reduce Medicare to a voucher system.  At the same time, Ayn Rands anti-Christian dog-eat-dog teachings taught Ryan that the most fit and powerful should receive the entitlements in society.  This leads to his policies of reducing taxes on the very rich without consideration for how the shortfall in tax revenue will be made up, even if it means that the less fortunate will pay or lose out for it.  Ryan will not run away from those beliefs.  Unlike President Obama's debate, there will be no surprises for Vice President Biden.

Ayn Rand

Vice President Biden will have an excellent opportunity to show middle class Americans that Ryan-Romney policies will hurt them.  I believe he will enthusiastically cite specific examples of their differences.   

Vice President Biden should reassure Americans that the Democratic Party is the Party of the middle- class while emphasizing that Republicans are the Party of the wealthy.   He should expose the Republicans' true stance on social issues, women's issues, tax plans, jobs plan and military spending and the effects those will have on people and on the deficit.  He should never let any of Ryan's debate  attacks stand un-returned.  If he can do those things he should revive the support of America back to President Obama.  

This debate means a lot and could turn the tide of popular opinion back to Obama.   Perhaps you don't agree but I believe President Obama should get a huge bounce in the polls because of Vice President Biden's victory this night.    

From Romney's Official Web Site - His Tax Plan explained

Romney and Ryan

While on the Campaign trail we hear a lot of platitudes and rhetoric from Romney and Ryan but very little factual information on how they plan to improve our economic condition.  The Romney tax plan has been one of these kinds of issues.  

So for this session, I will review the actual facts as presented by Romney on his official web site, http://www.mittromney.com  When I am done, I think you'll understand why he is so quiet about it on the campaign trail.  Those lines that are in quotes are extracted from Romney's web site.  Those lines that follow the quoted lines are my explanatory comments.

“To repair the nation’s tax code, marginal rates must be brought down to stimulate entrepreneurship, job creation, and investment, while still raising the revenue needed to fund a smaller, smarter, simpler government. The principle of fairness must be preserved in federal tax and spending policy.”

“Lower marginal tax rates secure for all Americans the economic gains from tax reform.”

The following paragraphs cite the various steps in Romney's plan.

Romney's Tax Plan For Individuals:

“Make permanent, across-the-board 20 percent cut in marginal rates"

Marginal rates have the greatest effect on the wealthiest of taxpayers. A twenty percent rate cut is a huge amount but only makes a real difference to the wealthiest among us.   Add to that the tax loop-holes that are only available to the wealthy and soon middle class America will not only be paying a higher tax percentage than the wealthy, but some may even pay more in absolute tax dollars than the rich.

“Maintain current tax rates on interest, dividends, and capital gains”

The categories of income included in interest, dividends and capital gains are used almost exclusively by the wealthy. The current tax rates for these are very low with capital gains as low as 15%. With the many tax loop-holes available to the ultra-rich, this tax rate is already lower than that for most wealthy taxpayers. The point is that this tax favoritism is again directed toward the rich. Most of the middle-class will have almost no tax savings at all because they do not have income from investments.

“Eliminate taxes for taxpayers with AGI below $200,000 on interest, dividends, and capital gains”

Again, these categories are already non-existent for most middle-class Americans. The estimated AGI income of the Middle class Americans is around $50,000. About 94% of America has AGI less than $100,000.  Ask yourself how much of your taxable income (not 401K investments) comes from cash stock trades done throughout the year.  Do you understand that Romney's plan is targeting benefits for the wealthy?

“Eliminate the Death Tax”

This tax is already non-existent for middle class Americans unless an individual has over $5,000,000 in assets.  And who do you think would benefit from such a tax elimination? Let me give you a clue.  It is estimated that the heirs of the each of Koch brothers would benefit by nearly $8 billion dollars if this tax was eliminated

“Repeal the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT)”

The AMT is paid only if the regular tax amount would be less than the AMT amount. It is not used in addition to the regular tax rate, but as the name implies, as an alternative to the regular rate. It is normally required by individuals and Corporations with incomes over $200,000. Since Romney is proposing to make the regular tax rates for the wealthiest individuals much less, he must repeal the AMT, or his favoritism to the wealthy would be over-ridden by the AMT. So this strategy is not to benefit the middle-class, but instead to ensure that his tax favoritism for the wealthy stays in tact.

Romney's Corporate Tax Plan:

“Cut the corporate rate to 25 percent”

Romney's tax plan for Corporations calls for a 10% reduction in tax rates. Similar to the plan for wealthy individuals it goes without saying that Corporate Tax initiatives would favor the wealthiest in America. It has very little benefit on the middle class. No jobs will be created because Corporations have their taxes cut unless demand increases. The American worker is the source of nearly 75% of the demand in America. Reducing taxes for the rich will only benefit the rich as it has for the last thirty years with very little improvement in jobs or take-home pay for workers. When more workers are employed and wages are improved, demand will increase. This starts from the middle-class out and not from the top down.

“Strengthen and make permanent the R&D tax credit”

This tax advantage is intended to increase spending on Corporate Research. It is difficult to know how much of an impact that this tax credit has had on the economy but it is known what kind of tax advantages are had by Corporations because of it. A study by Ernst and Young in 2005 reported that 17,700 Corporations claimed $6.6 Billion in R&D Tax credits.

“Switch to a territorial tax system”

This is Romney's way of allowing American Corporations to escape paying taxes on any business carried out in foreign countries. A territorial Tax system is one that only taxes income earned in the United States. This would be a huge loop-hole for Corporate America to escape paying their fair share of taxes. It is difficult to estimate how much revenue would be lost since it would likely change Corporate practices to take advantage to the greatest extent possible.  It is easy to say that the reduction in Corporate tax revenue would be extremely high and outsourcing of plants and jobs would likely be increased to the max.

“Repeal the corporate Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT)”

For the same reason as the individual AMT repeal, this would be necessary if Romney's other reductions in taxes are to be effective in reducing taxes for the wealthy.

Ultimately, Romney's tax plan would favor the wealthiest of Americans and do little for the middle class.  With a territorial tax it may even hurt the middle class by taking more jobs out of the country.  And who do you think will get stuck paying the taxes that are being lifted from the rich?  You guessed it...Middle-class America.

If you hear Romney and Ryan proclaim that they are for the middle class during their campaign tour, now you'll know that they are both compulsive liars who will say anything to get your vote.  

Like sheep to the slaughter, millions of our middle class American Republicans are being led astray by the slick double-talk of their so-called concerned Republican leaders.  

Save your vote and your job.  Vote a total Democratic ticket this November.

If Romney's speech is all it takes to convince America that he should be President, then America isn't listening

After three days of self indulgent speeches by Republican Governors and repeated lies about the out of context words 'you didn't build that' and false statements about Obama's hidden agenda to screw the elderly by stealing from medicare,  I was actually looking forward to Romney's speech.  I wanted to hear for myself how this potential President of the United States would explain how he plans to make things better for the people of this great country.

But, if you're someone who is not easily impressed, a thinker, or use to dealing with facts, then you were probably disappointed by Romney's address to the Republican National Convention.

After getting by all the fakery about being concerned that Obama was unsuccessful and that America deserved better, Romney started getting into the complaints about the current administration.

Romney's explanation of Obama's failure is based on the fact that he does not have business experience.  It may seem reasonable to ordinary Americans that a CEO would be a good person to fix our struggling economy, but is this necessarily true?

The most important thing driving the actions of a Corporate businessman like Romney is to make a profit through the sale of goods or services.  A government not only does not sell goods or services, it also does not have a profit motive.  A government is driven by concern for all members of it citizenry.  Sometimes that concern is in the form of social programs to help Americans through times of hardship.  Sometimes it means building an infrastructure of roads, bridges and technology that benefit society and provide citizens and businesses a means to accomplish more.  In Corporate America, times of economic difficulty usually mean that a Corporate CEO takes actions to reduce those elements of cost that he believes are not indispensable.  Interpreting this into a CEO-President Romney terms, this means cutting those social programs that the government provides.  As expected Romney was short on explanations of how his business experience at Bain Capital would help him be a better President than Obama.  How much he believes the importance of business experience may have been exposed today when he mis-spoke and called America a "Company" instead of a "Country."

Romney dismisses the idea that the economic problems we have been experiencing were the result of the Bush Presidency.  He simply states that Obama should just accept the blame for it because he hasn't gotten us out of it yet.  This is as anti-intellectual as stating that the person sent in to help fix a mess confess that he created the mess because he wasn't done cleaning up yet.  People have to realize that the  recession we are in is the worst economic disaster since the Great Depression.  That disaster took nearly fifteen years to get resolved.  Instead, Romney would return to Bush era practices that caused our present economic situation.  Additionally, Romney would not mention that there are many signs that the economy is improving and has been since Obama came into office.  Obama's policies are working despite all the obstruction that Republicans in Congress have caused in order to prevent him from being successful.  As they have stated themselves, Republicans in Congress had a most important objective to obstruct everything Obama proposed in order to make him appear to be impotent and unsuccessful.  They did this in the midst of the economic disaster and they did it to the detriment of the American people they are sworn to represent.

Jobs under Bush (red) vs Obama (blue)

Romney claims that Obama crushed the middle class because there are no jobs.  He does not admit that since Obama has been in office new jobs have shifted their negative trend from the Bush era and have been on a constant increasing trend.

Romney says that Obama hates small business and intends to increase taxes on small business.  He does not admit that Obama has only reduced taxes on small business since he has been in office.  Obama's newest proposal for taxes does not increase tax on small business.  Government programs such as the Small Business Administration are strong and helping small businessmen and women everyday.

In his speech Romney continues the lie about Obama stealing 716 Billion dollars from medicare to fund Obama-Care.  I hope everyone knows that this lie which has been disproved by numerous independent sources will not become true simply because the Republican leadership re-states it over and over again.

His speech took on a very militaristic character at one point.  I thought for sure he was against cutting the military budget because he has plans to start a war with Iran if he was elected.

Romney concluded his speech with promises to the American people.  Romney gave no detailed explanation of how these promises will be accomplished so I guess he just wants us to trust him.  He promised:

1. Twelve million new jobs.  It has been estimated that we are currently on a path to accomplish this without any new Romney actions within four years, so I guess this one is possible, but still an empty promise.

2. Energy independence by 2020. This claim is made even though Romney is critical of Obama's interest in  funding research on new forms of energy.  Romney has signed onto the Oil and Coal coalition as well, so I guess he intends to drill and dig more in America.  We have been told many times by the oil companies when they increase gas prices, that oil is in limited supply.  So over the long term how does Romney expect to become energy independent?

3. Create new trade agreements and punish any country that cheats.  Which countries and how punishment would be carried out was left to our imagination.

4. Assure that the "job creators" investments won't vanish.  Romney will also cut the deficit and balance the budget.  None of this is explained, but protecting the wealthy  investors sounds like tax law reform and Wall Street regulation is not high on Romney's agenda.

5. Reduce taxes on business.  I guess this is to support the job creator lie or maybe to give more credence to the possibility that the job creators really will turn away from American workers as an effective threat against having their taxes raised.

6. Repeal (and now replace) Obama-Care.  I can't believe Romney thinks taking health insurance away from the American people will be seen as a good thing to anyone except die-hard (and healthy) Republicans.  Again Romney gives no explanation on any of this.

In concluding his speech, Romney's additional unexplained rhetoric included statements that seemed intended as a band-aid to cover what has recently become controversial about Republicans.  He vows to care for the sick, statements apparently made to soften the view that he intends to repeal Obama-Care.  He claims that he will respect the elderly, seemingly trying to change the popular view that Republicans like he and Ryan have plans to change Medicare into a voucher program.

Empty promises claiming certainty of success may sound good but without details give us no factual information to evaluate whether they will ever be achievable.  I guess we'll need to listen closely to Romney's explanations if they exist in future appearances.

I'm so looking forward to the Presidential debates in October.  Perhaps by then Romney will have better explanations for his promises.  If not, President Obama will walk all over him.

Romney's head will be spinning and he'll probably have to admit that his Party really was not only responsible for the current  economic disaster, but also responsible for blocking  progress on resolving it.




       

Republicans would even lie to their mothers

How can you trust them?  They'll lie about anything.  They'll lie to anyone.  And now they are even lying to their mothers.

Have you seen the commercials where certain Republican Congressmen are asked by their aging mothers if they would hurt medicare?  It is pitiful that they can lie to their own mothers like that as they look them straight in the eyes and deny it.  Some may be trying to distance themselves from the Ryan budget, but most are just fibbing.  They should have their mouths washed with soap.

This year the Republican National Committee is throwing caution to the wind as they incorporate lying into their arsenal of vote capturing tools.  It seems that everyday RNC Chairpeople, Mitt Romney and now Paul Ryan are telling some new lie about  President Obama or Democratic policies.  They obviously think if they repeat the lie over and over again, eventually the public will believe it.  It seems like an assembly of third graders have organized this Republican campaign.

Democrats have been known to be the champions of social programs like Medicare and Medicaid.  Paul Ryan is famous for his Republican budget proposal which slashes many social programs, including Medicare.  Mitt Romney has publicly announced his support for that budget.

President Obama's Affordable Care Act reduces medicare fraud and excessive payments to Insurers and Doctor's.  It is estimated that this will save about $716 billion in costs but strengthens medicare benefits for the elderly.  It is estimated that with these actions, President Obama will extend the solvency of medicare by eight years.  Mitt Romney intends to repeal the Affordable Care Act the day he is elected.  This would eliminate the cost savings in medicare brought about by that Act.  By these actions, Romney would return the $716 billion to the insurance companies and business owners who are perpetrating medicare fraud.  It's also been estimated by AARP that Paul Ryan's plan would undermine Medicare and lead to additional annual costs as high as $6400 for seniors.

Paul Ryan and Mom

So now Romney and Ryan are claiming that President Obama is reducing medicare benefits by the $716 billion.  This is a total lie that Ryan told at a retirement community in Florida this morning, with his mother listening at his side.  Both Romney and Ryan continue this lie in public appearances across the country.

Romney and Ryan's plan proposes that seniors pay up to an additional $6400 per year to get a private insurance plan that will actually cover their medical needs since their voucher program will allow only minimum medical care.  Perhaps wealthy seniors like Ryan's mother won't find the additional costs too hard to come up with.  But for the most part, that cost could be up to 25% of the annual income of many seniors.  Further, being forced to make choices on how to spend their limited income, some seniors may not be able to afford the care that they need and this could lead to premature death.      

If there is one thing that rings true about Republicans, it is that their approach to cutting the deficit is to cut social programs first.  Worse still, they intend to do this while at the same time giving tax breaks to the wealthy.   With tax revenue reduced at the top, the rest of us will have to come up with the difference if our deficit is to be managed at all.  This can only be accomplished by increasing government revenue by middle class tax increases and slashing or eliminating social assistance programs.

Ultimately, the top 2% are given governmental assistance (let's call it high-class welfare) and the rest of us are pushed under the bus.  Does it make sense to give assistance to people at the high end of the economic scale instead of those in the middle and lower end that really need it?  It does to the Republicans.

Don't let them fool you.  Class warfare is alive and most of the shots are coming from the Republican party and aimed directly at the rest of us.

The next President of the United States: Paul Ryan

Mitt Romney is smarter than we all think.  Or maybe he is psychic. He knows he doesn't have a snowball's chance in Hell of winning the 2012 Presidential election.  So he wisely introduces Paul Ryan as the next President of the United States today on a crowd filled battleship with much of America watching.

And the crowd roared.  Maybe they thought the same thing.  Perhaps they cheered so loudly because they thought "Thank goodness, Romney's finally come to his senses.  Perhaps we Republicans can really win this thing with Ryan at the helm now!"

Of course he means that Paul Ryan will be the 2016 Republican Presidential nominee and potential President.  He can't mean that he's trading places with Ryan in the current Presidential election.  Or could he?

Maybe Romney's freudian slip occurred because he thinks that Ryan would make a better President than he himself.  Perhaps he thinks with Ryan's help, he will become President but is attributing most of the effort in that cause to Ryan.  Who knows what was really running through Romney's head when he mis-spoke so eloquently?  More likely it was a brain-fart of developing senility showing.

But will Paul Ryan really help the ticket?  Talk is that half of Republicans think Ryan will hurt the Presidential cause, mainly because they don't think he is conservative enough and his budget plan doesn't reduce the deficit fast enough.

Even so, it's doubtful that those Republicans will vote for Obama.  However, it is possible that Ryan's  budget plan, his attack on social security, his attack on medicare and his pledge to repeal the Affordable Care Act (ObamaCare) will drive away elderly Independent voters.  That could be critical in swing states such as Florida and may cause them to lose the election.

Perhaps the best thing that Ryan will do for Romney is to remove some of the focus of the very successful negative attack adds.  But then again, Ryan's "sinful" political reputation is sure to draw fire from concerned religious groups and kind humans everywhere.

Now that I think about it, Paul Ryan may not have been such a good idea for the GOP, but  choosing him for VP mate may just be the best thing that the Republicans could have done for Obama.