The elite deficit scolds pushing the "Fiscal Cliff" fantasy will not stop once January arrives and nothing happens, the news folk will still worship at their feet.

When Prophecy Fails

By PAUL KRUGMAN

Back in the 1950s three social psychologists joined a cult that was predicting the imminent end of the world. Their purpose was to observe the cultists’ response when the world did not, in fact, end on schedule. What they discovered, and described in their classic book, “When Prophecy Fails,” is that the irrefutable failure of a prophecy does not cause true believers — people who have committed themselves to a belief both emotionally and by their life choices — to reconsider. On the contrary, they become even more fervent, and proselytize even harder. 

 

 

This insight seems highly relevant as 2012 draws to a close. After all, a lot of people came to believe that we were on the brink of catastrophe — and these views were given extraordinary reach by the mass media. As it turned out, of course, the predicted catastrophe failed to materialize. But we can be sure that the cultists won’t admit to having been wrong. No, the people who told us that a fiscal crisis was imminent will just keep at it, more convinced than ever.

Oh, wait a second — did you think I was talking about the Mayan calendar thing?

Seriously, at every stage of our ongoing economic crisis — and in particular, every time anyone has suggested actually trying to do something about mass unemployment — a chorus of voices has warned that unless we bring down budget deficits now now now, financial markets will turn on America, driving interest rates sky-high. And these prophecies of doom have had a powerful effect on our economic discourse.

Thus, back in May 2009 the Wall Street Journal editorial page seized on an uptick in long-term interest rates to declare that the “bond vigilantes,” the “disciplinarians of U.S. policy makers,” had arrived, and would push rates inexorably higher if big budget deficits continued. As it happened, rates soon went back down. But that didn’t stop The Journal’s news section from rolling out the same story the next time rates rose: “Debt fears send rates up,” blared a headline in March 2010; the debt continued to grow, but the rates went down again.

At this point the yield on the benchmark 10-year bond is less than half what it was when that 2009 editorial was published. But don’t expect any rethinking on The Journal’s part.

Now, you could say that The Journal’s editors didn’t give a specific date for the fiscal apocalypse, although I doubt that any of their readers imagined that they were talking about an event at least three years and seven months in the future.

In any case, some of the most prominent deficit scolds have indeed been willing to talk about dates, or at least time horizons. In early 2011 Erskine Bowles confidently declared that we would face a fiscal crisis within around two years unless something like the Bowles-Simpson deficit plan was enacted, and Alan Simpson chimed in to say that it would be less than two years. I guess he has about 10 weeks left. But again, don’t expect either Mr. Simpson or Mr. Bowles to admit that there might have been something fundamentally wrong with their analysis.

No, very few of the prophets of fiscal doom have acknowledged the failure of their prophecies to come true so far. And those who have admitted surprise seem more annoyed than chastened. For example, back in 2010 Alan Greenspan — who is, for some reason, still treated as an authority figure — conceded that despite large budget deficits, “inflation and long-term interest rates, the typical symptoms of fiscal excess, have remained remarkably subdued.” But he went on to declare, “This is regrettable, because it is fostering a sense of complacency.” How dare reality not validate my fears!

Regular readers know that I and other economists argued from the beginning that these dire warnings of fiscal catastrophe were all wrong, that budget deficits won’t cause soaring interest rates as long as the economy is depressed — and that the biggest risk to the economy is that we might try to slash the deficit too soon. And surely that point of view has been strongly validated by events.

The key thing we need to understand, however, is that the prophets of fiscal disaster, no matter how respectable they may seem, are at this point effectively members of a doomsday cult. They are emotionally and professionally committed to the belief that fiscal crisis lurks just around the corner, and they will hold to their belief no matter how many corners we turn without encountering that crisis.

So we cannot and will not persuade these people to reconsider their views in the light of the evidence. All we can do is stop paying attention. It’s going to be difficult, because many members of the deficit cult seem highly respectable. But they’ve been hugely, absurdly wrong for years on end, and it’s time to stop taking them seriously.

Obama & Pelosi indicate she and the republicrats in her caucus are willing to throw the poor and middle class under the bus to protect the rich.

Nancy Pelosi Predicts 'Democrats Will Stick With The President' On Fiscal Cliff Deal 

 Sam Stein
Amanda Terkel

 

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said she expects Democrats to back President Barack Obama's fiscal cliff deal. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite, File)

WASHINGTON -- House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) is convinced her fellow Democrats will get behind the White House's latest "fiscal cliff" deal that cuts Social Security benefits and increases taxes on the middle class. Others in the party, however, hedged on the likelihood of that provision passing with a majority of Democratic votes.

President Barack Obama's latest offer in the fiscal cliff negotiations would allow the payroll tax holiday to expire, meaning middle-class workers will see smaller paychecks in 2013. It also proposes a Social Security reform known as "chained CPI" that would reduce the benefits senior citizens receive through Social Security.

Additionally, Obama's latest offer would permanently extend the Bush tax cuts for incomes of less than $400,000. Previously, the president had insisted that taxes increase on families with income above $250,000.

Despite these changes, Pelosi said she could convince her caucus to get behind such a plan, if need be.

Read More; Here

The "fiscal cliff" is a fiscal bluff that is being hyped by both side to ram through polices that protect the rich, and decimate the middle class and poor.

The G.O.P.’s Existential Crisis

By PAUL KRUGMAN

Published: December 13, 2012

• We are not having a debt crisis.

Fred R. Conrad/The New York Times

It’s important to make this point, because I keep seeing articles about the “fiscal cliff” that do, in fact, describe it — often in the headline — as a debt crisis. But it isn’t. The U.S. government is having no trouble borrowing to cover its deficit. In fact, its borrowing costs are near historic lows. And even the confrontation over the debt ceiling that looms a few months from now if we do somehow manage to avoid going over the fiscal cliff isn’t really about debt.

No, what we’re having is a political crisis, born of the fact that one of our two great political parties has reached the end of a 30-year road. The modern Republican Party’s grand, radical agenda lies in ruins — but the party doesn’t know how to deal with that failure, and it retains enough power to do immense damage as it strikes out in frustration.

Before I talk about that reality, a word about the current state of budget “negotiations.”

Why the scare quotes? Because these aren’t normal negotiations in which each side presents specific proposals, and horse-trading proceeds until the two sides converge. By all accounts, Republicans have, so far, offered almost no specifics. They claim that they’re willing to raise $800 billion in revenue by closing loopholes, but they refuse to specify which loopholes they would close; they are demanding large cuts in spending, but the specific cuts they have been willing to lay out wouldn’t come close to delivering the savings they demand.

It’s a very peculiar situation. In effect, Republicans are saying to President Obama, “Come up with something that will make us happy.” He is, understandably, not willing to play that game. And so the talks are stuck.

Why won’t the Republicans get specific? Because they don’t know how. The truth is that, when it comes to spending, they’ve been faking it all along — not just in this election, but for decades. Which brings me to the nature of the current G.O.P. crisis.

Since the 1970s, the Republican Party has fallen increasingly under the influence of radical ideologues, whose goal is nothing less than the elimination of the welfare state — that is, the whole legacy of the New Deal and the Great Society. From the beginning, however, these ideologues have had a big problem: The programs they want to kill are very popular. Americans may nod their heads when you attack big government in the abstract, but they strongly support Social Security, Medicare, and even Medicaid. So what’s a radical to do?

The answer, for a long time, has involved two strategies. One is “starve the beast,” the idea of using tax cuts to reduce government revenue, then using the resulting lack of funds to force cuts in popular social programs. Whenever you see some Republican politician piously denouncing federal red ink, always remember that, for decades, the G.O.P. has seen budget deficits as a feature, not a bug.

Arguably more important in conservative thinking, however, was the notion that the G.O.P. could exploit other sources of strength — white resentment, working-class dislike of social change, tough talk on national security — to build overwhelming political dominance, at which point the dismantling of the welfare state could proceed freely. Just eight years ago, Grover Norquist, the antitax activist, looked forward cheerfully to the days when Democrats would be politically neutered: “Any farmer will tell you that certain animals run around and are unpleasant, but when they’ve been fixed, then they are happy and sedate.”

O.K., you see the problem: Democrats didn’t go along with the program, and refused to give up. Worse, from the Republican point of view, all of their party’s sources of strength have turned into weaknesses. Democratic dominance among Hispanics has overshadowed Republican dominance among southern whites; women’s rights have trumped the politics of abortion and antigay sentiment; and guess who finally did get Osama bin Laden.

And look at where we are now in terms of the welfare state: far from killing it, Republicans now have to watch as Mr. Obama implements the biggest expansion of social insurance since the creation of Medicare.

So Republicans have suffered more than an election defeat, they’ve seen the collapse of a decades-long project. And with their grandiose goals now out of reach, they literally have no idea what they want — hence their inability to make specific demands.

It’s a dangerous situation. The G.O.P. is lost and rudderless, bitter and angry, but it still controls the House and, therefore, retains the ability to do a lot of harm, as it lashes out in the death throes of the conservative dream.

Our best hope is that business interests will use their influence to limit the damage. But the odds are that the next few years will be very, very ugly.

Obama policy of settling banking crimes with small fines compared to the illegal profits encourages law breaking.

Obama Administration Essentially Admits That Some Banks Are Too Big To Jail, Which Is Troubling

One of the great things about being too big to fail is that you're also too big to jail, apparently.

So saith the Obama administration, via the New York Times, in its front-page story on Tuesday about HSBC's settlement with the government over money-laundering charges. Though the British banking giant had to pay a wrist-stinging $1.9 billion, the settlement helped it avoid formal criminal charges. The NYT quotes anonymous government officials who say they were skittish about indicting HSBC because formal charges would amount to a "death penalty" for the bank, potentially roiling the financial system.

This is at least three very specific flavors of bullshit.

For one thing, according to University of Notre Dame law professor Jimmy Gurulé, a former assistant U.S. Attorney General and former Undersecretary for Enforcement for the U.S. Treasury Department, the government could have formally charged Europe's biggest bank in such a way as to help it avoid death. The bank's U.S. business may have been disrupted for some time, but the bank could have survived. The punishment that was meted out -- taking about half a quarter's profit -- was so far removed from a "death penalty" that it can't possibly be a deterrent for any other big bank.

And even if the government felt it could not formally charge HSBC, it could easily have charged individuals at the bank without causing financial armageddon. Instead, not a single HSBC individual faces criminal prosecution, despite evidence that billions of dollars were laundered on behalf of Mexican drug lords, the Iranian government and other evildoers for years.

Nor have any individuals been charged at the five other big European banks that have also managed to dodge formal money-laundering charges in recent years, including British bank Standard Chartered, which entered its own deferred prosecution agreement on Monday. Apparently, all of this constant money laundering was done by robots.

"The message this is sending is if you want to engage in money laundering, make sure you're doing it within the context of your employment at a bank," Gurulé said in a phone interview. "And don't go small. Do it on a very large scale, and you won't get prosecuted."

"It's essentially telling the executives in these institutions crime pays," Neil Barofsky, former Special Inspector General for the Troubled Asset Relief Program, the government's bailout program, told CNN. "Go ahead, do whatever you want to do, enjoy your profits, and the worst thing that happens, well, you have some fines that really make up a couple of weeks of profits that you lose."

Finally, if the Obama administration's attitude about banks is truly that it is terrified of prosecuting them, for fear of upsetting the global economic order, then that is a damning statement about our financial system -- though it is of a piece with everything else we've learned since the crisis: If you're a bank and you're big enough, you're basically going to get away with everything short of murder. And maybe that, too. You can certainly create and sell toxic securities while also betting against them and trigger a global depression without having to worry about doing any jail time.

"Somebody else is bound to look for the next hole in the system at another international bank, and exploit it," Anthony Michael Sabino, a professor at St. John's University's Peter J. Tobin College of Business, wrote in an email. "It’s time we started asking are these banks just too big to meaningfully regulate.”

That time actually passed long ago.

The European economists like their American counter parts refuse to learn from their own actions. Debt and spending reduction during a recession doesn't work, stimulus does.

Austerity Pushes Europe Into Its Second Recession In Four Years

By Travis Waldron 

Continuing efforts to cut spending and reduce deficits have driven the Eurozone into its second recession in just four years, as its economy shrank for the second consecutive quarter. Struggling countries like Spain, Greece, Portugal, and Ireland are still pursuing deficit reduction to rein in their debt, cutting spending to the bone to do so. The spending cuts have driven unemployment to record levels and threatened the continent with a recession that became official during the last quarter, Bloomberg reports:

The euro-area economy was pushed into a recession for the second time in four years as trade slowed and government spending declined.

Gross domestic product in the 17-nation currency bloc slipped 0.1 percent in the third quarter from the previous three months, when it fell 0.2 percent, the European Union’s statistics office in Luxembourg said today, confirming an initial estimate published on Nov. 15.

Eurozone unemployment reached 26 percent in September. The youth unemployment rate has topped 50 percent and resulted in a “lost generation” for the continent’s young adults. Still, the pursuit of austerity continues.

Lawmakers around the world have ignored the European lesson, though. Australia’s growth slowed last quarter as its government pursued deficit reduction, and in the United States, the so-called “fiscal cliff” brought on by Republican-demanded spending cuts is threatening the country with a bigger austerity package than those that have been implemented in Europe, even with ample proof that the U.S.’s original preference toward stimulus was more effective than the austere European approach.

Non wealthy Republicans, are delusional travelers to crazy town, who vote against their own interests and believe ACORN stole election.

Nearly Half Of Republicans Believe Defunct Organization Stole The Election For Obama

By Annie-Rose Strasser

Forty nine percent of Republicans believe that President Obama won reelection thanks to the allegedly illegal work of a group that no longer exists, according to a Public Policy Polling survey.
The Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) was at the center of anti-Obama energy in 2008, when Republicans cited some faulty registration forms obtained by ACORN as proof of voter fraud. The charge was particularly potent, since Obama hired one of the organizations associated with ACORN to run voter turnout for him in the primary.

But in 2010, ACORN filed Chapter 7 bankruptcy, putting an end to the community organizing effort altogether. Still, the fact that ACORN no longer exists hasn’t stopped the group from serving its role as scapegoat. Fifty two percent of Republicans blamed ACORN for Obama’s win in 2008, saying that they “stole” the election for him. That number only dropped by 3 percent, and 49 percent blame ACORN this time around.

Iceland the proof of the Austerity LIE. Iceland, a beacon of economic sanity, doing well in a world of economic crazies.

Truthdiggers of the Week: Iceland’s Leaders

by Alexander Reed Kelly.

One country refused to bail out its derelict banks and slash social spending amid the financial crisis. And guess what? Unlike the eurozone and the United States, it’s making a sturdy comeback.

Iceland’s stock market plunged 90 percent in 2008. Inflation reached 18 percent, unemployment shot up ninefold and its biggest banks failed. This was no recession. It was a full-blown depression.

Since then, the country has steadily improved. By September of this year, it repaid its IMF rescue loans ahead of schedule. Unemployment dropped by half and its economy will have grown by roughly 2.5 percent by the beginning of 2013.

So what’s Iceland’s secret? According to the editors at Bloomberg News, it’s a refusal to do what virtually every other nation that was pummeled by the crisis did: adopt policies of economic austerity.Iceland’s approach was the polar opposite of the U.S. and Europe, which rescued their banks and did little to aid indebted homeowners. Although lessons drawn from Iceland, with just 320,000 people and an economy based on fishing, aluminum production and tourism, might not be readily transferable to bigger countries, its rebound suggests there’s more than one way to recover from a financial meltdown.

Nothing distinguishes Iceland as much as its aid to consumers. To homeowners with negative equity, the country offered write-offs that would wipe out debt above 110 percent of the property value. The government also provided means-tested subsidies to reduce mortgage-interest expenses: Those with lower earnings, less home equity and children were granted the most generous support 

The International Monetary Fund’s mission chief to Iceland has sung the nation’s praises too. “Iceland has made significant achievements since the crisis,” Daria V. Zakharova told Bloomberg in August. “We have a very positive outlook on growth, especially for this year and next year because it appears to us that the growth is broad based.” 

Letting the losses fall on bondholders rather than taxpayers, maintaining the country’s welfare system and imposing temporary controls on investments protected Iceland from collapse and pushed it toward recovery, she said.

American leaders are threatening to do the opposite at the end of this year when a potential failure to reach a deficit reduction deal will trigger a total of $54.7 billion in spending cuts from government offices and social programs, Medicare among them, per year. 

Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman agrees that cuts to the social safety net are not the way. Ideology should not trump empirically based economics, he says. But right now, in the United States, it is. Krugman writes:

The doctrine in question amounts to the assertion that, in the aftermath of a financial crisis, banks must be bailed out but the general public must pay the price. So a crisis brought on by deregulation becomes a reason to move even further to the right; a time of mass unemployment, instead of spurring public efforts to create jobs, becomes an era of austerity, in which government spending and social programs are slashed. 

Even in the face of evidence, including a recent return to recession for the eurozone economy, elected officials on the right and left are pushing what serious economists recognize as failed policies. And it appears they will continue to do so for the indefinite future. In the meantime, we honor the reality-based leaders in Iceland as our Truthdiggers of the Week.

Obama asks Republicans to make him screw the 99% and protect the 1%, with the "Grand Bargain"

 Obama and Boehner about to finally put it to the 99% and protect 1%



Why does Obama seem to get rolled by republicans even when he is in a strong bargaining position, because he wants to get rolled. He isn't weak he is just doing what he feels will get him what he wants with offense to the fewest number of people.

Obama is not a wild eyed liberal socialist. Obama is a conservative corporatist, to the right of Ronald Reagan. He wants to protect the wealthy and Wall Street, he wants to be the first president to cut medicare and social security. He has increased government spying on citizens, he doesn't want to restrict corporate spying on individuals. He pushed a health care bill that was a wet kiss to the insurance industry, and would not allow even talk of some kind of public option let alone single payer (medicare for all). Obama believes in trickle down economics, when ever he asks for economic stimulus the lions share he proposes is tax cuts.

Obama's main problem is that Americans are progressive and he is conservative. Americans want to tax the rich, Obama doesn't, Americans want to help home owners, Obama wants to help the banks. But Obama has a very strong ally, the Republican party. So Obama is a very talented politician, and he knows that if he talks progressive, but bargains poorly with conservatives he will arrive at the conservative position he desires while being able to to say its not my fault, they made me do it.

This “Grand Bargain” is a perfect example of how Obama works. He has created a false crisis at the end of the year, the “Fiscal Cliff”. There is no crisis, if nothing was done, middle class taxes would go up very slightly and the wealthy would go back to paying the tax rate they paid under Clinton, NO PROBLEM. The new revenue would be a great boon to lowering our national debt and balancing our budget. But Obama wants to keep taxes low on corporations and the wealthy, so he and his allays in the Republican party will create this “Grand Bargain” where Obama will be forced by Republican intransigence to accept a deal where there is a slight rise in the capital gains rate (15% to 18 or 20%) no change in the marginal rates with a few under used loop holes closed, but with cuts to Medicade, Medicare and if he is really lucky Social Security.

The middle class will pay more in taxes and the rich will not. in a year or two the loop holes will be back and the rich will be paying a lower effective tax rate.

But some one has to pay for all these gifts to the wealthy, so middle class get ready to kiss your mortgage deduction good bye.

Republicrats & Obama are getting ready to commit the "Grand Rape" of the Middle Class. Taxes from the 99.9% NOTHING from the .1% !

Paul Krugman: Republicans Seem Ready To Throw Upper Middle Class 'Overboard' 

 

  By Bonnie Kavoussi 

Paul Krugman says that the Republican Party may throw the modestly rich "overboard" to protect the fortunes of multi-millionaires.

In a blog post on Tuesday, Krugman focuses on one tax proposal floated by Congressional Republicans that would essentially create a "tax bubble," disproportionately hurting the upper middle class. (Nate Silver has an explanation and a chart here.) Krugman writes that taking this tack would let the GOP protect the super-rich at the expense of the working rich (using the decades-old language of Oliver Stone's Wall Street) who make six-figure salaries.

"When push comes to shove, the GOP seems ready to throw the bottom 90 percent of the top 1 percent overboard, in order to protect its real patrons, the superelite," Krugman writes.

The Obama administration and Congress are in talks to reach an agreement avoiding the fiscal cliff: a set of tax hikes and spending cuts scheduled to take place at the end of the year if they do not agree on a deficit reduction plan.

Some Congressional Republicans, including House Speaker John Boehner, have said they are open to raising tax revenue but remain opposed to raising marginal tax rates. Here's a great explanation of marginal tax rates from economist Dean Baker (h/t Jason Linkins):

The tax system brackets give marginal rates. This means that if the raise bumps you into a higher bracket then you pay more taxes only on the income in the higher bracket. Suppose that the tax bracket for income under $200k is 25 percent, and for income over $200k is 33 percent. If you get a raise that pushes your income from $195,000 to $205,000 then you only pay the higher 33 percent tax rate on the $5,000 that is above the $200k threshold not your whole income. Therefore, there is no (as in none, nada, not any) way that getting more money, and being pushed into a higher tax bracket will leave you with less money after taxes.

One Republican proposal would tax a household's entire income at the highest rate possible, rather than just the portion of income that exceeds a certain limit. Doing so would penalize some people for making more money, as Nate Silver noted.

Republican Congressmen also have proposed raising tax revenue by limiting deductions, which could disproportionately hurt the upper middle class. Some Senate Democrats have said they are open to capping deductions.

At least wal-mart keeps its sweat shop fires off shore so as not to bother US shoppers.

Bangladesh Factory Fire Kills At Least 112 in Wal-Mart Sweatshop

By Diane Sweet

At least 112 employees of a Bangledesh garment factory perished in a blaze late Saturday after becoming trapped inside the building with no fire exits. The factory produced clothing for Wal-Mart, and other U.S. retailers. Were your Black Friday deals worth it?

There was no escape. A fire claimed 112 workers in a garment factory near the capital of Bangladesh late Saturday. A fire official said their last moments were spent in panic as they searched in vain for fire exits leading outside. “I want the factory owner to be hanged,” said one grieving mother who lost her daughter-in-law in the fire and whose son is still missing. “For him, many have died.” Firefighters have recovered 100 bodies from the gutted seven-story factory. Many of Bangladesh’s 4,000 garment shops lack proper fire protections.
The Telegraph:

"The factory had three staircases, and all of them were down through the ground floor," Mahbub said. "So the workers could not come out when the fire engulfed the building."
"Had there been at least one emergency exit through outside the factory, the casualties would have been much lower," he said.

Many of the victims were burned beyond recognition. The recovered bodies were kept in rows on the premise of a nearby school.

Army soldiers and paramilitary border guards were deployed to help police keep the situation under control as thousands of onlookers and anxious relatives of the factory workers gathered at the scene, Mahbub said. He would not say how many people were still missing.

Bangladesh's garment factories make clothes for brands including Wal-Mart, JC Penney, H&M, Marks & Spencer, Carrefour and Tesco.

Private equity firms like Bain Cap. are classic examples of crony capitalism and enemies of free market capitalism.

The Dirty Little Secret of Private Equity Profits

Wednesday, 17 October 2012 11:41 By Jim Hightower

Today, for the first time, I am officially notifying the honchos of Bain Capital, Blackstone Group, Carlyle Group, Kohlberg Kravis Roberts and other big-time private equity funds that I am available. My little company, Saddle Burr Productions, can be had. For a price.

I publish this notice in response to a recent news item revealing that these firms have a unique and perplexing problem: They have too much money on hand. In all, they're holding a cool trillion dollars that super-rich speculators, banks and others have entrusted to them. Private equity funds are corporate predators that borrow huge sums from these richies, using the cash to buy out targeted corporations, dismantle them and sell off the parts to make a fat profit for the investors and themselves.

However, in these iffy economic times, these flush funds have hesitated to do big takeovers, so they've just been sitting on all that money (which the predators refer to as "dry powder"). The problem is that, under the rules of this high-stakes casino game, the firms have to spend their borrowed money by a set time -- or give it back. And the clock is ticking.

So, using Wall Street's macho lingo, the big players have announced that they're now ready to go "elephant hunting" and are prepared to fire big bucks to bag some companies. To which I say: Fire away at Saddle Burr Productions!

OK, my company is hardly an elephant. But maybe it could be what the equity hucksters refer to as a "hot potato." That's what they call it when one fund grabs a company just to sell it to another fund, which might pass it off to yet another.

This year, equity firms are expected to spend more than $22 billion this year selling hot potatoes to each other -- in part, just to move cash out the door so they don't have to give it back.

This is what passes for good business sense in the truly screwy world of private equity. It's just churning money, producing absolutely nothing -- except, of course, huge fees for the churners. But if that's the game, hey, put me in the mix. A billion dollars sounds about right.

Executives in private equity firms -- such as Mitt Romney of Bain Capital and Henry Kravis of Kohlberg Kravis Roberts -- tend to be peacocks who think quite highly of themselves.
Fanning their splendid tail feathers, they unabashedly claim to be the ultimate free-enterprise risk-takers -- worth every dime of the multimillion-dollar paychecks they award themselves each year. Excuse me, but the risks by these self-anointed "heroes of the market" are actually taken with other people's money, not their own. That's quite a bit short of heroic. But here's a revelation that really ruffles their feathers: It seems they've been hauling in their massive profits not by bold and savvy competition in the marketplace, but through old-fashioned financial collusion with each other.

An antitrust civil lawsuit filed in federal court against 11 of the biggest equity firms includes internal emails in which they agree not to compete. In 2006, for example, yhe head of Blackstone sent an email to the co-founder of KKR: "We would much rather work with you guys than against you. Together we can be unstoppable, but in opposition we can cost each other a lot of money." The KKR honcho happily emailed back a one-word response: "Agreed."

Collusion, of course, perverts the marketplace they pretend to worship, artificially lowering the market price they'd otherwise pay. And they are not shy about playing this mutual backscratching game. In the 2008 takeover of the giant HCA hospital chain, KKR expressly asked its market rivals "to step down on HCA" and not bid. Agreeing to this blatantly illegal collusion, one rival wrote in an email: "All we can do is do unto others as we want them to do unto us. It will pay off in the long run."

For his part, Romney insists that any collusion by Bain occurred after he left the firm. "He had no role," says a spokeswoman. Well, none besides pocketing the loot. Documents from the lawsuit show that Romney clearly received millions in profits from deals that Bain appears to have made through its collusion in the grand game of market manipulation. If so, can we expect him to return those ill-gotten gains?

Krugman vindicated in his policy battle with IMF kool aid drinking economists in the EU. IMF Admits They got it Wrong!

Oops!

Posted: 10 October 2012 

The headline news from the latest IMF World Economic Outlook is the downward revision of 2013 growth forecasts—from 1.8 percent  to 1.5 percent for advanced countries, and from 5.8 percent down to 5.6 percent for emerging and developing countries.

But the report contains an even more extraordinary admission (highlighted in Box 1.1, written by Olivier Blanchard and Daniel Leigh): the IMF were wrong about the fiscal multipliers it has been using in its forecasts and policy recommendations by a factor of 3! Yes, instead of .5, which they had been using, Blanchard and Leigh estimate the fiscal multiplier to be closer to 1.5.

What this means concretely is that the IMF and all the other mainstream economists who were using the lower multiplier severely underestimated the negative effects—on investment, consumption, and unemployment—of the austerity measures that have been imposed in the wake of the economic crisis of 2007-08.

Paul Krugman feels vindicated. Jonathan Portes is willing to give the IMF credit for “going back, looking at their forecasts, analysing what went wrong, and saying very clearly ‘We thought the impact of fiscal consolidation on growth would be relatively small. We got it wrong.’”

For me, there can’t be any forgive and forget. The one thing mainstream economists are supposed to get right is the calculation of multipliers. And they didn’t. And the lives of millions of people have been ruined as a result.

The aristocratic old grandpa state

by Jen Sorensen

 

Romeny says corporate money is speech, union money is not.

Romney: Campaign Funding Okay For Corporations, Not Teachers

By karoli

Mitt Romney appeared on NBC's Education Nation Tuesday morning to give a pitch for private schools and charter schools. During the question and answer session with Brian Williams, he was asked about the Chicago teachers' strike, and whether he thought teachers should be allowed to go on strike.

His response was quite remarkable. While he believes teachers should have the right to go on strike (or so he says), he was quite adamant that teachers and by extension, teachers' unions, should not have the right to donate to campaigns or purchase advertising in the same fashion that corporations do.

If Citizens United ruled that money is speech, then why isn't teachers' money speech? They're citizens, they vote, and they also happen to be public employees.

According to Mitt Romney, "in the case of the Democratic Party, the largest contributor to the Democratic party is the federal teachers' unions." He went on to say that "if they elect someone, then that person is supposed to be representing the public, vis a vis the teachers union, but actually most of their money came from the teachers' union." He wrapped it all up by declaring it an "extraordinary conflict of interest."

I'm going to do my best to first sort out what Mitt Romney actually said, without regard to whether he's factually correct. As I understand it, he says elected officials represent the public, but their campaigns are funded by some thing that's not the public called a union and therefore there's a conflict.

I don't think I did that very well. Or perhaps he didn't say it very well, because it's just a silly argument. Teachers are citizens. They vote. They contribute to a union which then contributes to candidates and clearly discloses that they have made that contribution. When a union pays for an independent expenditure, it's clearly understood that union members paid for that. When a corporation pays for an independent expenditure, it's not even disclosed.

Mitts Tax Plan Would Transfer Wealth From The Hard Working Middle And Lower Class To The True Moochers, The Government Dependent Idle Rich!

How Romney’s Economic Plan Redistributes Wealth To The Wealthy

By Pat Garofalo 

Mitt Romney yesterday attempted to turn attention away from the fallout of his comments regarding the “47 percent” by pointing to a video from 1998 in which President Obama, then a state senator, says, “I actually believe in redistribution, at least at a certain level to make sure everybody’s got a shot.” The video was aggressively pushed by the Drudge Report and was detailed in a Romney campaign memo today.

This video doesn’t show much of anything new: President Obama has consistently advocated for higher tax rates on the rich, a position most Americans support, and more support for low-income Americans.

Romney’s response also ignores that his own economic plan would redistribute wealth too — Romney would just redistribute it to the already wealthy.

According to a Tax Policy Center analysis, Romney’s plan would increase after-tax income for those making more than $200,000 annually, while lowering it for everyone else:

The upshot of Romney’s plan is that “taxpayers with incomes over $1 million would see their after-tax income increased by 8.3 percent (an average tax cut of about $175,000), taxpayers with incomes between $75,000 and $100,000 would see somewhat smaller increases of about 2.4 percent (an average tax cut of $1,800), while the after-tax income of taxpayers earning less than $30,000 would actually decrease by about 0.9 percent (an average tax increase of about $130).”

This analysis made the most generous assumptions about Romney’s plan, factoring in that he would eliminate tax deductions and loopholes in the most progressive way possible in order to finance his tax cut. And still, it would constitute a dramatic shift in income to the already wealthy.

According to the latest data from the Census Bureau, income inequality increased last year, despite ongoing government efforts to combat the Great Recession. Romney’s plan would make that trend even worse.

Romney Tells His Fat Cat Donors What He Thinks Of The Real Hard Working Americans. They Are Moochers!

Romney demands that seniors take 'personal responsibility'

by Armando

 

Romney promises tough choices for you, but not for him and his rich friends.

 

Most of today's seniors, who worked hard, played by the rules and paid their taxes, have retired. Most seniors do not pay federal income taxes.
Mitt Romney says about them:

My job is not to worry about those people [...]’ll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives.”

In his press conference last night, Romney said:

I recognize that among those that pay no tax, approximately 47 percent of Americans, I’m not likely to be highly successful with the message of lowering taxes.

Romney's message is that in order to lower taxes for his wealthy friends he will demand that retirees who worked hard, played by the rules, saved for retirement and counted on the promise of Social Security and Medicare, "take personal responsibility" and pay higher taxes, receive less in Social Security and trade in the promise of Medicare for Ryan's Vouchercare, ending Medicare as we know it.
Tax cuts for the rich. Tax hikes and benefits cuts for seniors and the undeserving rest of us.
That's the Romney promise. That's Romney's idea of personal responsibility.

Class warfare, anyone?

Adelson's $100 Million Election Investment Should Return About $2.3 Billion. A 2,200% Return On Investment. And We get A $2000 Tax Increase To Pay For It.

How One Mega-Donor Could Save $2.3 Billion Under Romney’s Tax Plan

By Travis Waldron

The $100 million that billionaire casino mogul Sheldon Adelson pledged to donate to Mitt Romney will turn out to be a good investment if the Republican nominee wins the presidential election in November, a new report from the Center for American Progress Action Fund found. Thanks to Romney’s tax proposals, which call for massive tax cuts for the rich, corporate tax reforms that will encourage the offshoring of profits, and the elimination of certain investment taxes, Adelson could personally save more than $2 billion in taxes, according to CAPAF Director of Fiscal Reform Seth Hanlon.

Romney’s tax plan would help Adelson in the following ways:

• Cut top tax rates, saving Adelson approximately $1.5 million on his annual compensation as chief executive of his casino company.

• Maintain the special low rates on dividends, potentially saving Adelson nearly $120 million on a single year’s worth of dividends, more than enough to recoup his political donations.

• Maintain the special low rates on capital gains, allowing Adelson to make back his political donations in capital gains tax cuts just by selling a fraction of his stock.

• Provide a tax windfall of an estimated $1.2 billion to Adelson’s company, Las Vegas Sands Corp., on untaxed profits from its Asian casinos, as well as a tax exemption for future overseas profits. Adelson’s casinos already enjoy a special foreign tax exemption from the Chinese administrative region of Macau, and Gov. Romney would make those foreign profits exempt from U.S. taxes as well.

• Eliminate the estate tax, potentially providing a staggering $8.9 billion windfall to Adelson’s heirs.

Romney’s corporate tax reforms would also provide Adelson’s casino company approximately $1.2 billion in tax breaks on overseas profits and $565 million from Romney’s proposed shift to a territorial tax system. Adelson’s share of that, the report says, would be upward of $900 million, nine times what he pledged to spend to get Romney to the White House.

While Romney’s tax plan would further enrich billionaires like Adelson, it would have to raise taxes on middle class families by as much as $2,000 if Romney were to keep his plan to maintain current levels of revenue.

enlarge

Credit: Under the Mountain Bunker

Deval Patrick Forcefully Tells Dems To Get Their Act Together.

Deval Patrick: ‘It Is Time For Democrats To Grow A Backbone’

By Annie-Rose Strasser

 Sep 4, 2012 

In making the case for the re-election of President Barack Obama Tuesday night at the Democratic Convention in Charlotte, North Carolina, Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick called on Democrats to “grow a backbone.”
“We are Americans,” Patrick said to roaring applause, “We shape our own future”:

My message is this — it is time for Democrats to grow a backbone and stand up for what we believe. Quit waiting for pundits or polls or Super PACs to tell us who the next President or senator or congressman will be. We are Americans. We shape our own future.

Find Out The Facts About Romney's Economic Plan. Take From The Middle Class & Poor To Give To The Rich.

7 Facts About Mitt Romney’s Economic Plan He Doesn’t Want You To Know

By Travis Waldron

Mitt Romney will officially accept the Republican nomination for president at the party’s national convention tonight, and in his speech, he will undoubtedly talk about the economy and his supposed plan to spur growth and speed up the recovery. Romney’s plan is notorious for its lack of specifics, but through the few details he has provided, ThinkProgress compiled seven facts about his economic policies that he likely won’t mention in his speech tonight:

1) It gives the rich and corporations a massive tax cut. Romney’s proposal to give every American a tax cut is a giveaway to the rich that is four-times larger than the Bush tax cuts. Half the benefit would go to the richest five percent of Americans, and each member of the top 0.1 percent would get at least a $264,000 cut. Romney says he will balance the cuts with the closure of tax loopholes, but he can’t name which ones he’d close and even if he did, the plan wouldn’t generate enough revenue to offset revenue lost to tax reductions. His corporate tax plan, meanwhile, results in more than $1 trillion in tax cuts.

2) It raises taxes on the middle class. A Tax Policy Center analysis found that Romney’s plan would raise taxes on middle class families by up to $2,000 if he were to keep his promise to maintain the current level of revenue. A later analysis that added in the cost of Romney’s corporate tax cuts nearly doubled the size of the tax hike on the middle class to as much as $4,000 for a family of four.

3) It won’t balance the budget. Romney’s tax plan would add more than $10 trillion to the national debt if he doesn’t balance it with tax increases on the middle class or with spending cuts that are too impossibly large to fathom. Even if Romney closed every loophole for the rich, as he has promised to do, he would need 6.5 percent economic growth for five years to avoid adding to the debt. The economy hasn’t grown that fast over a five-year period since the early 1960s.

4) It won’t lead to economic growth. The last Republican president promised that supply-side policies like tax cuts for the rich would boost the economy and lead to job growth. They didn’t. Romney is trying the same policies (Bush, “just updated,” as one RNC official put it), despite overwhelming evidence that they don’t work.

5) It will make it easier for corporations to dodge taxes and outsource jobs: Romney’s plan to switch to a territorial tax system will make it easier for corporations to stash their profits in off-shore tax havens. It would also make it easier for corporations to outsource American jobs. In all, economists estimate the plan could cost America 800,000 jobs.

6) It would put bankers between you and your student loans. Obamacare included a provision in the law that removed bankers from the federal student loan process, eliminating a middle-man and allowing borrowers to deal directly with the government. That reduced costs, saving students $100 billion. By repealing the healthcare law, Romney would put those bankers back in between students and government lenders, handing big banks billions of dollars in the process.

7) It won’t address the housing crisis. Romney’s economic plan had 59 points, but it failed to detail a plan to help America’s struggling homeowners. Instead, Romney says we should let the housing market “run its course and hit the bottom,” and that America shouldn’t “try to stop the foreclosure process.” His plan wouldn’t help the millions of Americans who are facing foreclosure or are underwater on their mortgages. It also ignores simple steps the government could take to help housing, and it has been criticized by Republicans in high-foreclosure states. Romney has since tried to reverse course, but he still offers no specifics.

Randian Sociopath Ryan, Lies His Way Through His Convention Speech..

6 Worst Lies In Paul Ryan’s Speech

By Aviva Shen

Vice presidential candidate Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) is taking flack on the morning news shows for his keynote address at the Republican National Convention Wednesday night. His speech was riddled with false claims, so much so that even Fox News wrote, “To anyone paying the slightest bit of attention to facts, Ryan’s speech was an apparent attempt to set the world record for the greatest number of blatant lies and misrepresentations slipped into a single political speech.”
Here are the most glaring lies from his speech:

1. “A downgraded America.” Ryan blamed the president for the nation’s credit downgrade in August 2011 after Republicans threatened to allow the government to default on its debt for the first time in history. But the ratings agency explicitly blamed “Republicans saying that they refuse to accept any tax increases as part of a larger deal.”

2. “More debt than any other president before him, and more than all the troubled governments of Europe combined.” Romney has made the almost identical claim, that Obama has amassed more debt “as almost all of the other presidents combined.” But their math doesn’t add up: when Obama took office, the national debt was $10.626 trillion. It has increased to slightly above $15 trillion.

3. Shuttered General Motors plant is “one more broken promise.” Ryan described a GM plant that closed down in his hometown, Janesville, Wisconsin, and blamed Obama for breaking his promise to keep the plant open when he visited during his campaign. But Obama never made that promise, and the plant shut down in December 2008, before Obama even took office.

4. Obama “did exactly nothing” on Bowles-Simpson. Ryan said, “He created a bipartisan debt commission. They came back with an urgent report. He thanked them, sent them on their way, and then did exactly nothing.” In fact, Ryan was instrumental in sabotaging the commission, leading the other House Republicans in voting against the plan.

5. “$716 billion, funneled out of Medicare by President Obama.” Ryan’s favorite lie is a deliberate distortion of Obamacare’s savings from eliminating inefficiencies. Furthermore, Ryan’s own plan for Medicare includes these savings. Romney has vowed to restore these cuts, which would render the trust fund insolvent 8 years ahead of schedule.

6. “The greatest of all responsibilities is that of the strong to protect the weak.” Ryan closed the speech with an invocation of social responsibility, saying, “The truest measure of any society is how it treats those who cannot defend or care for themselves.” However, numerous clergy members have condemned Ryan’s budget plan as “cruel,” and “an immoral disaster” because of its devastating cuts in social programs the poor and sick rely on. Meanwhile, Ryan would give ultra-rich individuals and corporations $3 trillion in tax breaks.

Ryan Doubles Down On The Lie Your Way To The Vice Presidency Strategy.

Paul Ryan’s breathtakingly dishonest speech

By James Downie

Yesterday, at an ABC News panel, Mitt Romney pollster Neil Newhouse said, “We’re not going to let our campaign be dictated by fact-checkers.” Wednesday’s speech from Paul Ryan certainly took that disdain for truth to heart, as his address was filled with falsehoods from start to finish.

Let’s start with the chronologically impossible. Ryan spoke about the GM plant in his hometown of Janesville:

A lot of guys I went to high school with worked at that GM plant. Right there at that plant, candidate Obama said: “I believe that if our government is there to support you … this plant will be here for another hundred years.” That’s what he said in 2008.

Well, as it turned out, that plant didn’t last another year. It is locked up and empty to this day. And that’s how it is in so many towns today, where the recovery that was promised is nowhere in sight.

Set aside the fact that Paul Ryan, in a fit of anti-Randianism, asked for government funds to save the plant. Set aside that he voted for the big-government auto bailout. Ryan also conveniently forgot to mention that GM announced the closure of the plant in early June 2008. In fact, Ryan and then-Wisconsin Sens. Russ Feingold (D) and Herb Kohl (D) sent a letter that month to GM CEO Rick Wagoner asking him to reconsider. This was not just before Barack Obama was inaugurated or even elected; it was the same day he won his own party’s nomination. There was no way Obama could have saved that auto plant without also discovering time travel.

Despite his problems with calendars, how did Ryan fare when it came to his own record? Well, he also inveighed against Obama on the national debt:

[Obama] created a bipartisan debt commission [, the Simpson-Bowles commission]. They came back with an urgent report. He thanked them, sent them on their way, and then did exactly nothing.

But Ryan was on that commission, and he voted against that “urgent report.” Also, the president did not do “exactly nothing”: The White House released a debt plan last September, despite Republicans’ best attempts to pretend it doesn’t exist. Finally, if the crisis is so urgent, why does Ryan’s own budget proposal not balance the budget until the 2030s?

One more example — a line from his attack on Obama’s stimulus:

The stimulus was a case of political patronage, corporate welfare, and cronyism at their worst.

As Time’s Michael Grunwald, who has just published a new book about the stimulus, points out, “Experts had warned that 5 percent of the stimulus could be lost to fraud, but investigators have documented less than $10 million in losses — about 0.001 percent.” Solyndra has been the exception, not the rule.

These are just three examples, and there are many others: attacking the president for “raiding” Medicare when his own budget calls for cutting the same amount of money from the program; claiming fiscal rectitude after voting for the two wars, Medicare expansion and tax cuts that remain key drivers of our federal deficit; and so on.

With tonight’s speech, Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan have doubled down on their twin bets of 2012 — that journalists will sit back and name winners and losers without regard to who is telling the truth, and that voters are too ignorant to care about the truth. Do not let them be right.

Romney Approves Of Forcing Miners To Work For Free.

Romney tells miners 'you've got a great boss.' That boss made them lose pay to listen to Romney.

 

by Laura Clawson

Reposted from Daily Kos Labor by Laura Clawson "You've got a great boss, he runs a great operation here," Mitt Romney told a group of Ohio coal miners at a Murray Energy mine on Aug. 14, before launching into an attack on President Obama's supposed opposition to coal. That "great boss," it turns out, had made the miners' attendance at the Romney event mandatory and unpaid:

A group of employees who feared they'd be fired if they didn't attend the campaign rally in Beallsville, Ohio, complained about it to WWVA radio station talk show host David Blomquist. Blomquist discussed their beefs on the air Monday with Murray Energy Chief Financial Officer Rob Moore.

Moore told Blomquist that managers "communicated to our workforce that the attendance at the Romney event was mandatory, but no one was forced to attend." He said the company did not penalize no-shows.

Because the company's mine had to be shut down for "safety and security" reasons during Romney's visit, Moore confirmed workers were not paid that day. He said miners also lose pay when weather or power outages shut down the mine, and noted that federal election law doesn't let companies pay workers to attend political events.

What does mandatory but not forced even mean? If your boss tells you something is mandatory, do you think, "Well, as long as he doesn't force me"? Facing questions from a radio host, management is now adamant that they didn't intimidate anyone and attendance was voluntary. Except that, yes, they did say it was mandatory.

This contempt for his workers is of a piece with the past behavior of Bob Murray, CEO of Murray Energy, who, as Meteor Blades detailed, has in the past lied about the company's actions just before a fatal mining accident, and who's lobbied against new safety regulations. But of course it's this kind of mine owner who Romney chooses to praise in front of a group of miners forced to stand there without pay. He's Romney's kind of people.

Allowing The Bush High-end Tax Cuts To Expire Would Raise $823 Billion In Revenue.

CHART: How Ending The High End Bush Tax Cuts Saves Nearly $1 Trillion

By Pat Garofalo 

President Obama has promised to end the Bush tax cuts on income in excess of $250,000 when they expire at the end of the year, with his aides saying that he is “100 percent committed” to preventing another extension. Of course, Republicans are again saying that all of the cuts should be extended, even as they claim that the federal deficit is too high.

But according to a new report from the Congressional Budget Office, allowing the high-end tax cuts to expire on schedule would raise $823 billion in revenue and save $127 billion in interest payments on the debt over the next ten years. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities used this chart to illustrate how much would be saved each year:
As the CBPP noted, “Overall, this would mean $950 billion in ten-year deficit reduction, a significant step in the direction of fiscal stability.” That’s nearly $1 trillion in deficit reduction for those concerned about the nation’s finances.

In addition to blowing up the country’s budget, the Bush tax cuts did not lead to the promised economic growth. In fact, the economy has fared worse under the GOP’s supply-side policies, on a slew of economic measurements, than it did when supply-side was not in effect.

Another Study Shows That The Class War Waged By The Top .1% On The Middle Class Has Been Very Successful.

STUDY: Middle Class Suffered ‘Worst Decade In Modern History’ As Wages Stagnated, Share Of Income Fell

By Travis Waldron 

The middle class is shrinking, and so is its share of America’s income and wage growth, according to a new study released Thursday. The study from the Pew Research Center found that the middle class — defined as Americans with incomes between $39,000 and $118,000 — fell backward in income for the first time since the end of World War II, and the number of Americans who fit into that category shrunk from 61 percent in 1971 to just 51 percent in 2011.

The share of income that went to the middle class also fell during the first decade of the 21st century, a 10-year period that featured two damaging recessions, including the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression, and a major housing crisis. The share of income that went to the wealthiest Americans, however, has grown substantially since 1970, as the Washington Post notes:

In 1970, the share of U.S. income that went to the middle class was 62 percent, while wealthier Americans received just 29 percent. But by 2010, the middle class garnered 45 percent of the nation’s income, tying a low first reached in 2006, compared to 46 percent for upper-income Americans.

Since 2000, the median income for America’s middle class has fallen from $72,956 to $69,487.

The Pew survey is the latest to note rising income inequality in America as the middle class continues to struggle while the wealthy remain relatively prosperous. Income inequality in the U.S. is now comparable, if not worse, than it is in countries like Ivory Coast and Pakistan, as middle class wages have stagnated. A 2010 Census Bureau study found that incomes for the bottom tier of Americans fell four times faster than they did for the wealthiest after the recession.

The “lost decade” for the middle class corresponds to declining tax rates for the wealthy and a growth in corporate profits. In the last 12 years, incomes for the wealthiest 400 Americans quadrupled even as their tax rates were halved, and executive compensation has grown 127 times faster over the last three decades than worker pay, one study found.

Romney Is Perfecting "The Big Lie" By Only Allowing Reporter Questions About What He Wants To Lie About.

Mitt Romney Campaign Forbids Reporter From Asking About Todd Akin, Abortion

  By Sabrina Siddiqui 

A Denver reporter granted a one-on-one interview with Mitt Romney Thursday said she was instructed not to ask him any questions about abortion or Rep. Todd Akin's (R-Mo.) controversial comments about victims of "legitimate rape."

Shaun Boyd, a reporter for Denver CBS affiliate KCNC, was one of four local reporters to speak with Romney, according to the newscast. She said on air that the Romney campaign had set pre-conditions before allowing her to interview the candidate.

"You know, I had about five minutes with him, and we got through a fair amount of material, actually, in that five minutes," Boyd said on-air. "The one stipulation to the interview was that I not ask him about abortion or Todd Akin -– he’s the Missouri Republican who created a firestorm after saying women’s bodies shut down in a legitimate rape to prevent pregnancy. I did ask him about health care, the female vote, and energy."

President Barack Obama's campaign has also been criticized over its handling of local interviews. According to reports, the president recently granted interviews with local TV stations designed to focus on sequestration.

Yet the Obama campaign insists it did not "dictate the topics" of questions that could be asked, as the Romney campaign appears to have done.

A Great Election Poem By A Fine And Very Clever 92 Year Old Retired Judge And W.W. 2 Veteran.

Ralph Maxwell

WHEREFORE ART THOU, MITT ROMNEY?

By Ralph Maxwell

O, Romney-O, Romney-O, Wherefore art thou, Mitt Romney?
You flip-flop here, you flip-flop there,
You flip-flop almost ev'rywhere.
You ballyhoo what you're gonna do
And then you pull a switcheroo;
You now malign what you found fine;
Seems like you've got a jellyfish spine.
Obamacare, by you begun,
Now you'd trash it on day one.
Gun control you did extol,
But now you're preaching decontrol.

O, Romney-O, Romney-O, Wherefore art thou, Mitt Romney?
We've got no clue what you will do
Or what new view you'll pander to.
Time was you championed women's choice,
But you no longer heed their voice;
On gay rights, too, guess you withdrew
Support they once enjoyed from you.
Global warming, EPA,
Immigration, minimum pay,
Roe V. Wade, also fair trade,
All joined your flip-flop cavalcade.

O, Romney-O, Romney-O Wherefore art thou, Mitt Romney?
So many things that you were for
You've turned against and slammed the door.
Stimulus and cap and trade,
Education, foreign aid,
Campaign reform, tarp rescues, too,
All victims of your switcheroo.
You take your stand on shifting sand,
We never know where you will land;
You vacillate, and you fabricate,
A wishy-washy candidate.

O, Romney-O, Romney-O, Wherefore art thou Mitt Romney?
As gov'nor you let taxes rise,
Now ev'ry tax you demonize.
You say regardless of the facts
You'd take an axe to the millionaire's tax;
You'd feed the greed of the richest few
The poor and middle class you'd screw.
Your tax returns you hide from view
What evil lurks there we've no clue;
If they're not bad why hesitate?
Is it that they incriminate?

O, Romney-O, Romney-O, Wherefore art thou Mitt Romney?
At Bain you plundered with a flair
And walked away a zillionaire.
You shipped off-shore, good jobs galore
To China, India, Singapore;
A job creator you are not.
And to boast you are is tommyrot.
As a total fraud, Mitt's got no peer;
What we must do is crystal clear:
Let's give Obama four more years!
Yes, it's Obama – four more years!
FOUR MORE YEARS!
FOUR MORE YEARS!
FOUR MORE YEARS!

Paul Ryan"s Budget Shows Him Not To Be A Deficit Hawk But A Snake Oil Salesman For The 1%

An Unserious Man

By PAUL KRUGMAN

Published: August 19, 2012

 

Paul Krugman

Mitt Romney’s choice of Paul Ryan as his running mate led to a wave of pundit accolades. Now, declared writer after writer, we’re going to have a real debate about the nation’s fiscal future. This was predictable: never mind the Tea Party, Mr. Ryan’s true constituency is the commentariat, which years ago decided that he was the Honest, Serious Conservative, whose proposals deserve respect even if you don’t like him. 

But he isn’t and they don’t. Ryanomics is and always has been a con game, although to be fair, it has become even more of a con since Mr. Ryan joined the ticket.

Let’s talk about what’s actually in the Ryan plan, and let’s distinguish in particular between actual, specific policy proposals and unsupported assertions. To focus things a bit more, let’s talk — as most budget discussions do — about what’s supposed to happen over the next 10 years.

On the tax side, Mr. Ryan proposes big cuts in tax rates on top income brackets and corporations. He has tried to dodge the normal process in which tax proposals are “scored” by independent auditors, but the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center has done the math, and the revenue loss from these cuts comes to $4.3 trillion over the next decade.

On the spending side, Mr. Ryan proposes huge cuts in Medicaid, turning it over to the states while sharply reducing funding relative to projections under current policy. That saves around $800 billion. He proposes similar harsh cuts in food stamps, saving a further $130 billion or so, plus a grab-bag of other cuts, such as reduced aid to college students. Let’s be generous and say that all these cuts would save $1 trillion.

On top of this, Mr. Ryan includes the $716 billion in Medicare savings that are part of Obamacare, even though he wants to scrap everything else in that act. Despite this, Mr. Ryan has now joined Mr. Romney in denouncing President Obama for “cutting Medicare”; more on that in a minute.

So if we add up Mr. Ryan’s specific proposals, we have $4.3 trillion in tax cuts, partially offset by around $1.7 trillion in spending cuts — with the tax cuts, surprise, disproportionately benefiting the top 1 percent, while the spending cuts would primarily come at the expense of low-income families. Over all, the effect would be to increase the deficit by around two and a half trillion dollars.

Yet Mr. Ryan claims to be a deficit hawk. What’s the basis for that claim?

Well, he says that he would offset his tax cuts by “base broadening,” eliminating enough tax deductions to make up the lost revenue. Which deductions would he eliminate? He refuses to say — and realistically, revenue gain on the scale he claims would be virtually impossible.

At the same time, he asserts that he would make huge further cuts in spending. What would he cut? 

He refuses to say.

What Mr. Ryan actually offers, then, are specific proposals that would sharply increase the deficit, plus an assertion that he has secret tax and spending plans that he refuses to share with us, but which will turn his overall plan into deficit reduction.

If this sounds like a joke, that’s because it is. Yet Mr. Ryan’s “plan” has been treated with great respect in Washington. He even received an award for fiscal responsibility from three of the leading deficit-scold pressure groups. What’s going on?

The answer, basically, is a triumph of style over substance. Over the longer term, the Ryan plan would end Medicare as we know it — and in Washington, “fiscal responsibility” is often equated with willingness to slash Medicare and Social Security, even if the purported savings would be used to cut taxes on the rich rather than to reduce deficits. Also, self-proclaimed centrists are always looking for conservatives they can praise to showcase their centrism, and Mr. Ryan has skillfully played into that weakness, talking a good game even if his numbers don’t add up.

The question now is whether Mr. Ryan’s undeserved reputation for honesty and fiscal responsibility can survive his participation in a deeply dishonest and irresponsible presidential campaign.

The first sign of trouble has already surfaced over the issue of Medicare. Mr. Romney, in an attempt to repeat the G.O.P.’s successful “death panels” strategy of the 2010 midterms, has been busily attacking the president for the same Medicare savings that are part of the Ryan plan. And Mr. Ryan’s response when this was pointed out was incredibly lame: he only included those cuts, he says, because the president put them “in the baseline,” whatever that means. Of course, whatever Mr. Ryan’s excuse, the fact is that without those savings his budget becomes even more of a plan to increase, not reduce, the deficit.

So will the choice of Mr. Ryan mean a serious campaign? No, because Mr. Ryan isn’t a serious man — he just plays one on TV.