When did extortion become synonymous with negotiation?

In an earlier post, called "A Republican to English Dictionary" I tried to unmask the language that our Republicans leaders use in conversation so that America could know that their words are hiding ulterior motives for their actions.  You can see that blog here.

After listening to John Boehner speaking with George Stephanopoulos this morning, it has become apparent that Republicans think they are negotiating when they are actually using extortion.

Boehner insisted that the government shutdown and any damage done by defaulting on our debts would be the President's and Harry Reid's fault because they "refuse to talk."

John Boehner

Boehner explained that Republicans were united in making the decision to use the continuing resolution to force a discussion around cutting the social safety net, social security, medicare and Obamacare.  This is even more than was originally planned, since only Obamacare was used in the Republicans' original threats.  When asked if Republicans would negotiate on new revenue he emphatically refused, saying that the President already got his new revenue and there would be no new taxes.

Mr. Stephanopoulos reiterated the advice of economic experts about how economically destructive defaulting on our loans would be.  He asked Boehner if he was willing to let this happen.  Boehner used his often repeated comment during the interview, that "it would be the President's fault" if we did.  It was clear that even if the President gave in to the Republicans extortion of America and sat down to talk with them, he would have nothing to gain and everything to lose.

Is this politics as usual or is something running amuck here?

If someone threatens you with global economic disaster unless you meet their demands, most people would think you are a terrorist.  Republicans think it is just everyday negotiating.  The Republican mind is a curious thing.

In the 2012 Presidential elections, Republicans campaigned on reversing all Obama-era legislation, changing medicare, revamping social security, cutting the social safety net, giving government welfare to the rich, reducing legislation on business and repealing Obamacare on the first day Romney took office.  And then they lost the election.  The majority of Americans do not support those policies but that does not stop Boehner from stating publicly that current Republican threats are just "doing what America wants", proving Republicans are stupid as well as stubborn.

In America there is a way to change laws.  It follows democratic principles; not the terrorist handbook.  Republicans have failed when using the democratic method to defund Obamacare over 40 times.  So now they seem content with using tactics that threaten the economic health of America.

Americans know that our government does not negotiate with terrorists.  Why should we stop when the terrorists are Republicans?

Republicans reduce demands for releasing the government hostage, but the threat of shutdown continues

John Boehner

When House Republicans started the debate over the continuing resolution to fund the government they started their bargaining at the high end.  Not only would ObamaCare have to be defunded, but nearly all of the Mitt Romney economic policies he campaigned on were added to the pot.  The Democrats in the Senate would not hear any of it, so they stripped everything out of the House bill except for the continuing resolution itself and returned it to the House.

Democrat majority leader Harry Reid forewarned House Republicans that any bill sent in response that included any changes to ObamaCare would be "dead on arrival" to the Senate chamber.  That didn't stop the Republicans on their second volley attempt at modifying the bill.

Late Saturday night, House Republicans reduced their requirements to two major ones related to ObamaCare.  They are now seeking a one year delay in the introduction of the program and elimination of a 2.3% tax on medical device manufacturers which was a requirement of ObamaCare funding.  Although this reduction in demands may be seen by the Republican base as a serious offer, it is unlikely to be met with anything but refusal when the bill goes to the Senate.

Neither the Senate nor the House is expected to be in session on Sunday, so it is almost certain that the government will shutdown unless a new bill can be drafted and passed by both chambers of Congress on Monday, September 30.

In an apparent concession that the government will close down, Republicans also passed a bill that would continue uniformed military pay in the event of a government shutdown.

As always, Republicans have been cunning in formulating strategies to advance their political agenda.  One Republican Congressman interviewed by MSNBC indicated that the goal of the one year delay was to allow time for Republicans to regroup and win the Senate back in 2014 when they could take care of the whole deal with ObamaCare.  A comment that made one think they planned to eliminate the program as soon as they were in control of both Houses.

The 2.3% medical device tax was a requirement of ObamaCare on medical device manufacturers' profits.  At the time of creation, legislators and manufacturers agreed that ObamaCare, with all of the new patients being covered, would give a windfall of new profits to all medical industries, some of which should be used to help fund the program.  Other medical industries agreed that between $60 billion and $80 billion was a fair amount to return for the increased revenue from ObamaCare over ten years.  The medical device industry however, has said that the 2.3% tax would be damaging to their industry and have spent over $150 million on lobbyists trying to get out of the deal.  If Republicans were successful in removing the proceeds from this tax, ObamaCare would essentially be defunded by some $35 billion over 10 years.

How long will it take Republicans to realize that Democrats just need a clean continuing resolution bill without attachments related to changes to ObamaCare?  Republicans have gone outside of the normal procedures of a democracy.  It is new ground that they are breaking by threatening harm to America unless they get their policies passed.  We can only hope that they do not repeat the same behavior when the debt ceiling comes up for a vote in the next few weeks.

Their actions during this President's term in office should give policy makers ample reason to justify legislation to reign in such harmful tactics by members of Congress.

The real scandal isn't at the IRS

The IRS is tasked with the responsibility to review applications for tax exemption.  In what is known as the 501(c) process, organizations can apply for tax exemption by providing information which proves to the satisfaction of the IRS, that they are non-political, social welfare type organizations whose primary function is not to advance a political agenda.

The IRS has recently come under attack by Republicans in Congress who claim that the IRS over-stepped their authority when it came to reviewing tax exemption applications from Tea Party type organizations.  The outrage of Republicans is evident  in the chambers of Congress where Republicans led by Darrel Issa, chair of the special investigative committee, have sworn to get to the bottom of the connection of IRS wrong-doing with the White House and more importantly with President Obama.

Perhaps because Republicans are blinded by the rush that getting a chance to implicate the President of wrong-doing elicits, they are missing some of the important facts which could, and by all rights should, turn the tide of wrong-doing onto their constituents.

First, to even refer to an organization as a Republican group implicates them as being political.  This violates the meaning of a 501(c)3 and 501(c)4 and should not entitle them to tax exemption.  Even so, the IRS approved applications for many obviously Republican political groups such as the "Tea Party Patriots" the "American Patriots Against Government Excess", "National Tea Party Group" and "Tea Party Radio."  If you have any doubt that these organizations are primarily politically focused, all you have to do is go to their web sites to see it for yourself.

So why did the IRS approve these applications?  If they followed their own guidelines, they should have known that these organizations were primarily involved in politics.  So what did they base their  decisions on?  Despite what the right wing media and Republicans in Congress are attempting to convey, the IRS did not make their decisions based on the names representing these organizations.  They could not have, otherwise they would not have approved the applications.  They made their decisions based on the information that the organizations provided.  

It appears a safe bet that the information provided to the IRS by the applicants was insufficient to implicate the organizations as political action committees.  If this was done by the applicants to  intentionally mislead the IRS review, then it is a crime which is punishable by fines and/or imprisonment.  That is the real scandal here.  These organizations might have knowingly hidden information from the IRS in order to get unfair and undeserved tax advantages.  That sounds familiar.  Where have we seen this before?  Oh yeah, Romney was pretty good at that.

Lindsey Graham

Now in a relentless pursuit to find something bad to pin on the President, Senator Lindsey Graham (R- SC) is calling for a special prosecutor to investigate the entire IRS "scandal".  This could be the best thing that ever happened for the IRS and the worst thing for the Tea Party Patriots and their Republican leadership.

If a special prosecutor is called who is impartial, then I predict that the IRS and the President will be cleared of any wrong-doing.  Furthermore, some unhappy Tea Party organizations will be paying for their arrogance and deception when the real scandal is revealed.  Perhaps clearer Republican heads will prevail and convince Graham to drop the idea before the truth can be known.

That would be a pity.

Why the Republican Party is destined to become extinct

Extinct Dodo Bird

As certain as the extinction of the Dodo bird, so is the imminent extinction of the Republican Party.

"What!??" you say.  The Republican party has survived the test of time and is a powerful machine that can't be stopped.  How can the party be destined for extinction?

Glad you asked.

The decline of the Republican party popularity is obvious in the polls and related to their obstruction in Congress for the most part.

Although the radical right wing of the Republican party, called the "Tea Party" deserves much of the blame for the party's loss of popularity, the acceptance of that faction by the moderate Republican membership is being seen by outside observers as the new direction of the Republican party as a whole.

In many respects this is probably a correct perception since the Tea Party Caucus still exists and some members of Congress who have been members of the Tea Party Caucus hold powerful positions on some committees.  I don't think the majority of voters know who in the Republican party is a Tea Partier, yet a large number of Tea Partiers lost seats in the last election.   From the stand-point of the American voting public, the Tea Party and hence the Republican Party may be losing support.

A lot of the personality of the Republican party is still coming from Tea Party members.  The party is inflexible.  It is obstinate and over-reaching.  It does not keep promises.  It is deceitful.  It is bigoted.  It is self-serving.  It is anti-intellectual.  It is uncaring.  It is war-mongering.  It is misogynistic.

The party refuses to accept or pass most Democrat introduced legislation.  They have become famous for being the party of obstruction.  Their overall approval rating in most polls is devastatingly low and around 20% as of this writing.

If you are a politician and the people don't support you, then you should be worried about losing your job.  The fact that most are not worried and continue to act the same way could show how anti-intellectual they are, but because the Republican side of the House has gerrymandered state voting districts, they are fairly sure that their actions represent the majority of people in their districts and they will be re-elected.

The party is populated with leaders who constantly re-invent the wheel and make it a lot less round each time.  Republican political leaders have re-written the workings of the female reproductive system.  They refuse to accept any scientific findings about climate change.  They believe science manipulates data to derive their own self-serving facts.  Needless to say, an overwhelming number of scientists do not belong to the Republican Party.

Republican leaders like John Boehner have said the number one issue for Republicans is "jobs, jobs, jobs."  Yet republicans have done nothing to create jobs.  They stick to the claim that Corporate America would create jobs if we don't tax them, even though Corporate America has given away millions of jobs to third world nations and incoming third world nationals over the last thirty years.  This is deceitful and just another way that Republican leaders show that they do not really mean what they say.

Republican leaders have recently publicly announced bigoted remarks such as calling gays "filthy homosexuals" and calling immigrants "wetbacks."  The White Student Union recently attended the Conservative Action Council where it's leader supported segregation and slavery.

KKK emblem

Without even thinking about the number of Republicans in the KKK, Republican bigotry is becoming more obvious since President Obama has been elected.

The Republicans in Congress appear to hate the fact that a black man could be the President.  They met even before President Obama's inauguration in 2008 to agree to block all legislation he introduced to make him a "one term President."  Failing that, they have continued their obstructionist actions to deny the President any successes.  They are now attacking the Affordable Care Act by voting for a 37th time to repeal it and in the process wasting $55 million of taxpayer money that could have otherwise gone to other more fruitful uses.

Their obsession with causing harm to President Obama includes casting rumors and suspicions of his personal involvement with recent controversies concerning the Benghazi attacks, the IRS review of 501(c)4 tax exempt organizations and Department of Justice obtaining AP members telephone records.

The uncaring attitude of Republican leaders is aptly represented by the introduction of the Ryan Budget which slashes social programs in favor of tax advantages for the wealthy.  Mothers and children who have little to eat rank far below the Republicans favorite person, the wealthy Corporate CEO.  In order to save America with so-called jobs, Republicans will ensure that their favorite persons increase their wealth while much of America starves.  Meanwhile Corporate coffers have become overflowing with cash while jobs are nearly non-existent.

The Bush administration brought us the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.  Had Mitt Romney won the 2012 Presidential election, Iran may already have been invaded.  We saw the clamoring in Congress when it was suggested that Iran might already have or very soon acquire nuclear weapons.  Republicans see war as a means to benefit their wealthy supporters who happen to own and operate companies involved in the weapons of war.  This explains their anxious dialog about going to war and funding war, while their legislation prevents the American victims of war and the veterans of war from getting assistance in returning to civilian life.

Republican leaders, where they control state legislatures and governorships have shown their misogynist side.  Republicans in Congress have stood against the Violence against Women Act.  Other Congressional actions to obstruct or defeat certain social programs will have an impact on women and children.  Wisconsin has passed repeal of equal pay for women.  North Dakota's Governor and other state governors have signed bills which many consider unconstitutional, to reduce women's access to reproductive rights services.  Even though Roe v Wade is law, Republicans in Congress and in the States have managed to restrict the intention of the law.    

Many Republican policies can be explained by what they are against.  They are anti-middle-class in their favoritism to the wealthy at the expense of the middle class.

They are anti-women in their fights against women's rights.

They are anti-gay rights in their opposition to marriage equality legislation.

They are anti-student in their votes against funding Pell grants.

They are anti-urban voter in their fight to make voting more difficult with reducing voting hours and requiring voter ID cards.

They are anti-student voter in their legislation to prevent students from voting in the state where their college is located.

They are anti-labor by their fights against the national labor relations board membership.

They are anti-jobs by their activities to block President Obama's American Jobs Act.

They are anti-consumer by their blocking the Presidential appointment of a Director for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

They are anti-Christian by insisting that social programs for the weakest of society be cut in favor of tax breaks for the wealthy.

They are anti-elderly by their demands for changing Medicare and Social Security which will hurt the elderly.

They are anti-poor people for fighting to repeal the Affordable Care Act which covers millions of formerly uninsured persons and improves patient treatment by insurance companies.

They are anti-veteran by preventing government aid to injured veterans and blocking assistance in finding jobs after serving their country.

They are anti-immigrant by failing to pass immigration reform.

They are anti-family by failing to protect children and families from gun violence by their actions to prevent improved background checks for firearms.

My guess is that the total number of people who Republicans are failing to represent amounts to nearly 98% of the country.  The reason they have not been voted out of office yet, I blame on the "one-issue" Republicans who continue to vote them in.  One-issue Republicans are those voters who dispel any other adverse effects of having a Republican represent them provided they cover their one major (usually social) issue of concern.

Remember Romney

The specific social issue may vary from voter to voter.   Republicans have done a good job in recognizing and appealing to those issues.  These issues include but are not limited to such things as gun rights, right to life, small government lie, no new taxes lie, the moochers syndrome and the job creators lie.

Convincing the voter that Republican policy will benefit them is greatly assisted by the Republican knack for lying to the public guiltlessly about anything that advances the Republican cause.  Fox news and other radical right wing talk show hosts contribute to this and may actually be hurting the Republican party more than it knows.  Lest you forget, remember the lies of the Romney campaign?  The same political infrastructure that led Romney is still leading the Republicans in Congress.  Romney lost the election but we are still being inundated by his policies...because they are Republican policies.

Ultimately, once the majority of one-issue Republican voters start to realize that it is in their best interest to evaluate all of the issues, the extinction of the Republican party will begin.  I think this process has already started and expect that we will see some of the results of this in the 2014 Congressional elections.

I'll bet you $10,000.  (Not really.  That's how I remember Romney ;-)

Rubio's response promotes Romney's policies as a winning approach even though America rejected it once already

Marco Rubio

Cloaked by a different look and different approach, Mitt Romney's policies don't sound any better when Marco Rubio espouses them.

In presenting the Republican response to the President's 2013 State of the Union address, Mr. Rubio had a difficult assignment.  In a nutshell, he had to convince the American people that the Republican approach to economic freedom, as framed by Mitt Romney, is better than the President's plan.

As with most Republicans, Rubio continues to believe that Republican policies are correct and fails to realize that the majority of Americans rejected those policies when they re-elected Barack Obama.   But you can't blame him for trying.  Or can you?

Rubio focused on big government not being the answer.  He claimed that increasing taxes and government spending are not the correct path.  He implied that the growth of government was President Obama's plan.  

Apparently, Rubio is not familiar with the fact that the size of government and the deficit has been reduced during the President's term.  He obviously is sticking by Republican claims that revenue is off the table during deficit talks, despite serious belief by economists that revenue increases must be had for the deficit to be brought under control.  He isn't listening to the President's talk about a balanced approach to deficit reduction.  He has not heard or does not believe that the President has already offered $2.7 trillion of the $4 trillion in cuts that economists believe necessary.

He claims that the opportunity to join the middle class comes from investing your own money to open a business.  By his definition, if you don't have the money, resources or ability to operate a business, then you don't belong in the middle class.  So I guess you are on your own because Rubio claims government help is not the way to the middle class.  He says this even though he received government loans to attend college, he has a government job that pays him $174,000 a year, he has government health care and a government retirement plan, his parents received social security and medicare helped his father die with dignity.  While he was alive, his father had opportunities to create and maintain his restaurant with the help of the government's small business administration.  This is so common of middle class Republicans who privately take from government programs while denigrating these government actions in public.  It must be impossible for a Republican to admit that the government might help anyone.

Rubio attempted to sway America away from the negative image that Democrats have painted of the Republican Party's allegiance to rich people by proclaiming that he (Rubio) still lives in a middle class neighborhood.  Could he have thought of anything else for a little more convincing argument?  No.

How many times did we hear Romney say he would cut Obama Care on his first day in office?  That wasn't enough for Rubio, because he essentially reiterated it by casting fear into the hearts of naive Americans who might believe him.  Let me paraphrase the Republican stand on the affordable health care law:  "Obama Care bad."  We've heard it all before and we rejected the idea when we rejected Romney.

It seemed apparent to me that Reince Pribus was still in control of the Republican party.  Mr Pribus was the architect of the Romney loss and is the newly re-elected Republican National Chairperson.  As Rubio mouthed policies that were exactly the same as those America rejected during the Romney campaign, I kept thinking "there you go again."  

Putting Rubio in front of the camera to represent Republicans is nothing more than a Republican tactic to improve public perception of the party.  We are seeing the repackaging of the Republican party where a softer, gentler party is presented, however Republican policies have not changed at all.  

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!

Obama loses 1st debate and the moral is never have a debate with a professional liar.

The man who recently told 47% of America that he can't worry about them because they are moochers on the government that he can never help, may have just won over some of those who are independent voters who he is hoping didn't take his earlier comments seriously.

Romney

Obama

Mitt Romney's personal performance on stage in Denver tonight during the first Presidential debate may have just saved his political career and made President Obama's fight to reclaim his office much more difficult.

The lack-luster performance of President Obama is sure to leave many of his supporters disappointed.  When I witnessed this, at first I thought that he was tired or ill or just didn't want to be at the debates this night.  Then I began to realize what may have actually happened that put him into what appeared to be a bad mood.

The first question was  about differences in economic policies.  President Obama answered honestly by explaining his idea was to build the economy from the middle-class out and not top-down.  He stated his views just as we have heard them over and over again during his campaign speeches.  He complained that Romney's tax plan to reduce top earners and corporate taxes as well as adding $2 trillion for military spending that the military did not ask for would increase the deficit and was not good for the economy.  He did not think it was good for the economy for government to give oil companies $2 Billion annual subsidies nor did he think that government tax credits for sending jobs overseas would help create jobs in America.  He favors eliminating the oil company subsidies and giving tax breaks for those companies that bring jobs back to America.

When the question was asked to Mitt Romney, his approach was to turn on the etch-a-sketch at full steam and change the policies that he has stated on the campaign trail and documented on his web-site.  Mitt is no longer for a top-down economic approach.  Now he is for a middle out approach that preserves middle-class tax cuts and does not reduce the tax burden of top earners.   He adds that he sees the economy improving by gaining energy independence, increasing free trade, giving workers skills training, balancing the budget and helping small business.

That's when I knew President Obama was going to have a difficult time during this debate.  When I realized he was arguing with a pathological liar.

A distinct advantage that Romney had going into this debate was that he was sure of what President Obama's policies were.  He could count on the President to state the facts as he always had.  Romney knew the President wouldn't lie.  Governor Romney knew his enemy, so to speak.

The President, on the other hand only thought that he knew what Romney would say.  Being a man of honor, President Obama was annoyed by the fact that Romney chose debate night to change his policies yet again, and you could see the disbelief in the President's face.  Now the President was in a bind.

The President reacted to Romney's lies in a gentlemanly yet impotent way. President Obama's facts were correct in each case, yet they did not hit the mark with the audience.  Even more troubling was the potential for uninformed voters to believe Romney's lies simply because he presented them more enthusiastically than the President's facts.

Romney's lies continued by claiming that President Obama was removing $716 Billion from Medicare and that he (Romney) would return that to Medicare by repealing ObamaCare.  He claimed that 15% of hospitals and 50% of Doctors would not treat patients on medicare because of the drastic cuts to it by Obama's policies.  He said that small businesses were dropping health-care for their employees because it was too expensive.  He indicated that small businesses reported to him that they are less likely to hire because of ObamaCare and that ObamaCare would add $2500 to the expenses of the average American's health care costs.  He shook his etch-a-sketch to say that under his replacement for ObamaCare a person could take government insurance if it was cheaper.  That he would allow young adult children to remain on their parent's policy.  That he would allow insurance to people with pre-existing conditions.  He lied about ObamaCare saying that it requires a board of health experts to determine what kind of individual care a person could get.

President Obama rejected all of these ideas but with much less enthusiasm than Romney had in presenting the lies.  This may have made the President appear to be less confident than Romney, even though he was being truthful and correct.

Dodd-Frank Act

Romney even said some things that have been widely unpopular with voters, but he said them with such enthusiasm, he may have made some people think that this hard medicine was needed to get our economy back in order.  For example, he admitted that anyone under 60 years old would be subject to his voucher insurance program that would go into effect when they would have otherwise received Medicare insurance.  He was in favor of repealing the Dodd-Frank bill that put controls on the banking industry and Wall Street brokers as a result of our financial meltdown.  But even with that he shook his etch-a-sketch and said he would only repeal parts of the bill that he didn't like.  (This is in spite of his own website calling for complete repeal of all Obama era legislation.)  He admitted that he would repeal ObamaCare, and right after that discontinue government support to the Arts and Humanities and PBS.  Good-bye Sesame Street.

Big Bird of Sesame St. fame

Given a chance to describe how they would work across partisan lines, President Obama told of only the positive interactions that he had with Congress (of which there were a lot) and decided not to implicate the Republican obstructionists for the legislation they have blocked.  Mentioning this may have worked against him and since this was not Romney's fault, I think he made a wise choice.  

On the same question, Romney may have gained points by saying that when he was sworn in as Governor of Massachusetts he had a mostly Democratic legislature and that he learned early on how to work along bi-partisan lines.

Overall, Romney attacked more, appeared more enthusiastic and appeared more prepared.  It was Romney's etch-a-sketch moments that appears to have really caught President Obama off-guard though.  The President just doesn't seem to know how to react to a flim-flam man and showing disgust seems to be how he handled it.  Unfortunately for him and for Obama supporters everywhere, this may ultimately be how he lost this debate.

An approval rating meter was displayed on the TV screen so that we could judge how Independent voters in the audience were reacting to each of the men.  That was interesting to watch, but a suggestion for the next debates which may have more significance to viewers would be to have the two men wear lie-detectors.

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.

As anxious as I am for the release of the iPhone 5, I'm even more anxious for the release of Rmoney tax records on September 28th.

Today, CNN reported that Price Waterhouse Cooper's (PWC) Franklin, TN, the Republican Campaign and the Democratic Campaign offices received a package from an anonymous person who claims that Mitt and Ann Romney's tax records were stolen from the PWC office and will be released to the Public on September 28th.  PWC is an accounting firm that is often used for complex tax returns.

Some of the details of this break-in are reported by the group or person who claims responsibility on the website called "pastebin.com" which you can find here. 

Although CNN claims that the group is holding the data ransom for $1,000,000, there is no mention of this in the letter posted to the paste bin site.  Perhaps this info was included in the package left with PWC, or perhaps was just made up.  This was not clear as of this writing.

The Secret Service is reportedly involved in an investigation.

It was not certain if this was a scam or a real incident, but the Republican and Democratic Campaign offices both did report receiving the package which they purport to not have opened.

I guess time will tell.

Little did I know that my layoff in 1995 from Dupont Medical Products was a God-send that saved my Dupont pension from the Bain Capital boogey-men

New England Nuclear logo

After college, I started working for a little medical diagnostics company in Worcester, Massachusetts known as New England Nuclear in 1974.  We occupied two converted former residential houses on Harvard Street, which was a newly zoned business district.  Our specialty was manufacturing medical diagnostic kits that utilized a radioactive "tracer" component.

When I began working there, the company had sites in Worcester, Boston and Westwood, Massachusetts.  We didn't make much money then, but it seemed the owners were satisfied with their share of small profits, which still allowed them to live well.  Executive salaries in the tens of millions of dollars was not common and really could never have been accommodated given our tiny profits at the time.  It was a different time then.  The profit motive was not the only consideration to businessmen at that time.  Employees made the difference and executives realized that and honored them for it.  We all could feel the warm concern that our employers had for us.  Many of us worked for them for a long time.  We were a small "family" that grew with each other.  We considered ourselves scientifically trained intellectuals and all had respect for each other.   We had fun doing our jobs and fun socializing with each other.

Investment in research helped us rapidly develop a number of new diagnostics kits and our product line and profits began to increase.  In about a year after I started, the business  expanded and moved from Worcester to a nice new facility in Billerica.  And that is where I worked for the next 20 years.

In 1982, Dupont Company became interested in our little company and purchased us.  It was really a good thing for our company.  Dupont management was very knowledgeable and taught us much about managing a company.  But this huge Corporation was very different than anything we knew before.  The corporate culture was very structured and inflexible.   The environment became somewhat more uneasy and competitions between departments began to arise.  As Dupont began to bring in their own people some of the original members of our New England Nuclear team lost out on promotions.  We played second fiddle to Dupont's own talented organization.

Around 1992, the newest thing to managing a business was Manufacturing Requirements Planning (MRP). The essence of MRP was to implement a computer tracked transactional system that allowed management and business users to have much better understanding of their sales, production capacity, inventory, purchases and financials.  We began an implementation of MRP in 1992.  We did a good job of implementing that computer system and became a "Class A" manufacturing company within two years of implementing it.  It gave management a better understanding of our business activities, future potential and financial situation.

In anticipation of undisclosed future actions, Dupont management moved the people from the Billerica diagnostics operations to the Boston site.   Perhaps because the MRP system was providing such good information, or perhaps because Dupont expected more profits than we could produce, in 1995 Dupont management decided to have a reduction in force of a good percentage in all divisions.  Many of us who were with New England Nuclear from the early days were let go.  I was one of them.  Maybe they were trying to save the greatest costs or perhaps they thought our severance package would get us further along to finding a new job, but we were all surprised by the selection of experienced people who were laid off.

For those of us who were terminated, it was a stressful time.  Jobs were not easy to find.  One of our young colleagues was found dead in his apartment.  I never knew why he died.  It may have been due to some other cause or due to some other reason, but I tended to believe it was suicide.

Because of my longevity with Dupont I was one of the lucky ones.  I had enough time in to have earned a Dupont pension.  I was given eleven and a half months severance pay and eleven months later I finally found a lower paying job.  Not my best choice in jobs, but my only choice since I had come up empty on any other offers.  At the time I thought this was terrible, but I did not know that my lay-off in 1995 was going to save me from a fate worse than the lay-off I had just experienced.

Dupont management's undisclosed plan was to divest entirely of the medical diagnostics division.   Dupont's main reason for the move from Billerica to Boston was to move the medical diagnostic personnel into a common location with the other medical site that they also planned to sell off.  Some commonly refer to this as putting all the crap into one sock.  The year after I was laid off, in 1996 Dupont found a buyer in Bain Capital.

Mitt Romney and Bain Capital team

Bain had already purchased another medical diagnostic company called Dade International in 1994 using mostly borrowed money.  Right away Bain paid themselves nearly $100 million in fees for buying the company and managing it. This amount was over three times Bain's original investment.

In 1996 Bain included my former colleagues into the Dade organization.   During Bain's reign over Dade International, more than 1700 US workers were laid off.  Some of my colleagues were the first with a layoff in 1997.  At first Bain's approach to cost cutting included reducing salaries and not paying overtime to existing employees.  Then they revoked their pensions.  Finally they laid them off.

In 1998, Bain wanted to sell Dade and were given a generous offer by Kohlberg Kravis Roberts and Company, but Romney wasn't happy with the offer.  By the next year Bain used creative financing to find a way out.  Romney had Dade take out hundreds of millions of dollars in loans to buy out half of Bain's shares and half of those of its investment partners.  As a result, Bain extracted $242 million from Dade and Goldman Sachs got $121 million.  Top Dade executives got $55 million.  Total payout was $420 million.

In 2002 Dade's liabilities reached nearly $2 billion.  By leveraging the company so badly in order to pay themselves, Bain put the company into bankruptcy.  In the bankruptcy, Romney was accused of "unjust enrichment" and Bain had to relinquish its remaining ownership of Dade.  Romney and Bain kept the $342 million.  The other creditors didn't fair so well.

After bankruptcy, Dade's revenue and share price rapidly increased and it was bought by Siemens in 2007.

Here's hoping that many of my former colleagues survived Romney and Bain Capital.  My bet is that they will not  be voting for Romney for President, even if they're Republicans.

Why Mitt Romney appears to be a spineless, dishonest shape-shifter

This may be the most sympathetic blog I have ever written about Mitt Romney.

The video below shows the record on the extreme flip flop nature of Mitt Romney.  It seems strange that Mitt Romney's position on so many issues could be reversed so thoroughly since he has begun his Presidential Campaign.  What could be happening that could make him such an etch-a-sketch man? 

Postulating causes of that metamorphosis may not take us in a direction that most of us would find familiar.  Mitt Romney is not like most of us.  His life has been blessed with riches that we will never know.  He has experienced the leadership power of being a Corporate CEO and the political power of a Governor of Massachusetts.  This is the second time he has attempted a run for the Presidency of the United States.  In order to have accomplished all that in his lifetime, he must be knowledgable, capable and at one time must have been likeable.  

Although Romney has not made it part of his political campaign, he was a Mormon Bishop in Boston for many years.  He was a generous contributor to the Mormon religion.  Although many consider Mormonism a cult, Romney did get positive life experiences by being a member.

Tony Kimball, a long-time Romney colleague, said he was "shocked" by Mr Romney's "end justifies the means" approach to trying to win the White House.

Tony Kimball

"There is no way that I can square what Mitt is doing and saying on the campaign trail with the Mitt I have know for 40 years and I don't know how he can square it either," said Mr Kimball, a retired university politics professor who served as another Boston area Mormon bishop and then spent seven years as Mr Romney's executive secretary.

Boston Mormon Temple

"I am dismayed by the things he feels the need to do as a political candidate.  This is foreign to the way he spoke and presided in the church.  It is not the same person."

"The sharp-edged individualism, the turning his back on the poor, the arguing that the rich deserve more tax breaks, that is all counter to what Mormonism teaches about compassion and collective care."

"Mitt seems to create a caricature of Obama and the Democrats and then attacks that creation.  I think he lacks the antennae that a good politician needs and I have serious misgivings about how he would manage the White House."

So what has thrown him off his game?  Why does he appear to be so wishy-washy, aloof and incapable of being President?  Why would he deny the exceptional health care plan he provided as Governor of Massachusetts?  Why would he change his opinions on almost every major issue he stood for since he has been a Presidential contender? 

Which is Mitt?

One reason is that he is a man who is being molded by a new Republican Party.  A Party that must reward their billionaire donors.  A Party whose policies violate Romney's own standards and personal values.  As such he is a man out of touch with his own sensibilities.  A man so unlike his own Party's thinking that his actions, his speech and his body language appear off to us.  He is a man who has given up on his own confidence.  Like a fish out of water, he is trying to survive in a world where everything is different than he knows.  By his flip-flops and lies we know he has given in to his "owners" and now his mind is theirs.  He is spine-less in that way.

Honesty is not his forte.   He is devilishly clever enough to realize when his policies are unpopular with voters and dishonest enough to change his policies on a dime to capture votes, even when it conflicts with his real beliefs.  He seems to have no problem with lying to the public about Obama and Democratic policies.  He truly does create lies about Obama and then blames him for them.  He is dishonest and a shape-shifter in that way.

Somehow in the excitement of this campaign he has forgotten his religious teachings.  His charity now begins with his wealthy supporters at the expense of those who struggle to make ends meet.  Thy shalt not lie is an easy commandment for him to break.

This is not a man that we can trust as President.  We can reasonably expect that this is a man who will deliver favors to those billionaires who are buying the Presidency.  He will forego his own thinking on all kinds of decisions to be led by his masters.  His dishonesty with the American people is sure to continue in office if he were elected.  When crisis is upon us, we do not want a dishonest puppet leading us to his master's commands. 

I strongly recommend viewing the following video.

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.