Romney’s Unraveling Claim That Six Studies Validate His Tax Plan

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/10/romney-challenged-on-six-studies-validating-tax-plan.php

From the site:

“In response to the persistent and substantial questions about the math of his tax plan not adding up, Mitt Romney and his campaign frequently argue that six independent studies back him up by ratifying the arithmetic of the centerpiece of his domestic agenda.

But the talking point about the talking point is unraveling.

More and more mainstream outlets are pointing out that they fail to validate its soundness. And on Sunday Romney senior adviser Ed Gillespie was challenged on Fox News by Chris Wallace, who questioned whether the studies are really nonpartisan.

“Those are very questionable. Some of them are blogs. Some of them are from the AEI [American Enterprise Institute], which is hardly an independent group,” Wallace said. “One of them is from a guy who is — a blog from a guy who was a top adviser to George W. Bush. These are hardly nonpartisan studies.”

“These are very credible sources,” Gillespie said.

Of the six studies, two are blog posts by the conservative American Enterprise Institute; one is a report by the Republican-friendly Heritage Foundation; one is a paper by Princeton professor and former George W. Bush adviser Harvey Rosen; the fifth and sixth are a paper and Wall Street Journal op-ed by Harvard economist Martin Feldstein, an adviser to the Romney campaign.”

Smilin’ Joe and the Janesville Kid

http://billmoyers.com/2012/10/12/smilin%E2%80%99-joe-and-the-janesville-kid/

“But from a purely strategic point of view, Biden came out ahead by doing what he had to do – reestablishing some credibility for the Barack Obama White House and defibrillating Democrats and progressives who a week ago lay prostrate after the president’s less-than-stellar performance during his first encounter with Mitt Romney.”

Moody’s Chief Economist: Romney’s Tax Plan: ‘The Arithmetic Doesn’t Work’

http://www.onepennysheet.com./2012/10/moodys-chief-economist-romneys-tax-plan-the-arithmetic-doesnt-work/

From the site:

The fact that Mitt Romney’s tax plan is mathematically impossible was reinforced again on Friday, when Mark Zandi, a former John McCain campaign adviser and Chief Economist at Moody’s Economy, admitted as much.

Speaking on CNN’s “Starting Point,” Zandi acknowledged a study by the Tax Policy Center that shows Romney’s plan to lower taxes by 20 percent across the board, while making up those losses in government revenue by closing loopholes on the wealthy, doesn’t add up. Zandi even went so far as to say that “the arithmetic doesn’t work as it is right now”:

ZANDI: Yeah, I think the Tax Policy Center study is the definitive study. They’re non-partisan, they’re very good. They say given the numbers that they’ve been provided by the Romney campaign, no, it will not add up. Now, the Romney campaign could adjust their plan. They could say okay I’m not going to lower tax rates as much as I’m saying right now and they could make the arithmetic work. But under the current plan, with the current numbers, no it doesn’t. I’ll say one other thing, though. I think it is important that we do focus on the so-called tax expenditures in the tax code. Those are the deductions, and credits, and loopholes in the code. We need to reduce those, because if we do we’re going to make the tax system fairer, easier to understand and ultimately lead to stronger growth. So that’s the right place to focus. But, no, the arithmetic doesn’t work as it is right now.

Robert Shrum on the Vice Presidential Debate: Biden’s Win Was a Big F@$&ing Deal

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/10/12/robert-shrum-on-the-vice-presidential-debate-biden-s-win-was-a-big-it-was-a-big-f-ing-deal.html?utm_medium=email&utm_source=newsletter&utm_campaign=cheatsheet_afternoon&cid=newsletter%3Bemail%3Bcheatsheet_afternoon&utm_term=Cheat%20Sheet

“It’s no contest—Biden nailed it. But Obama still needs to seal the deal. Robert Shrum on the three things that will determine the outcome of the presidential race—and why they all point toward a Democratic victory.”

Even Forbes loved Joe at the VP Debate!

Wow, even Forbes loved Joe’s debate performance!  Great, GREAT job by the VP – congratulations Joe!

http://www.forbes.com/sites/tjwalker/2012/10/11/joe-biden-is-stronger-communicator-in-vp-debate/

“Ryan also seemed nervous due to early and frequent sipping of water. Biden looked like he was having the time of this life and could go another two hours. Biden spent just the right amount of time looking directly into the camera. Ryan seemed less comfortable and energetic. Conservatives will make much over the fact that Biden laughed, smirked and interrupted Ryan. Liberals found that the best part of the evening.”

On the Distributional Effects of Base-Broadening Income Tax Reform

http://www.brookings.edu/research/papers/2012/08/01-tax-reform-brown-gale-looney

“This paper examines the tradeoffs among three competing goals that are inherent in a revenue-neutral income tax reform—maintaining tax revenues, ensuring a progressive tax system, and lowering marginal tax rates. As a motivating example, we estimate the degree to which individual income tax expenditures would have to be limited to achieve revenue neutrality under the individual income tax rates and other features advanced in presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s tax plan, and how the required reductions in tax breaks could change the distribution of the tax burden across households. (We do not score Governor Romney’s plan directly, as certain components of his plan are not specified in sufficient detail, nor do we make assumptions regarding what those components might be.)”

Fact-checking financial recessions

http://www.voxeu.org/article/fact-checking-financial-recessions

Paul Krugman made me aware of this excellent article co-authored by Schularick and Taylor:

“The central part played by credit in the deep downturn and weak recovery fits a recurring historical pattern. Financial crises correlate with more painful recessions. This column takes a close look at 14 advanced economies over the past 140 years and shows that larger credit booms during expansions have been systematically associated with more severe and prolonged slumps. In short, credit bites back. Measured against the historical benchmark, the recent US recovery has been far better than could have been expected.”

Romney Proudly Explains How He's Turned Campaign Around

http://www.theonion.com/articles/romney-proudly-explains-how-hes-turned-campaign-ar,29845/

Loved this from The Onion:

“I’m lying a lot more, and my lies are far more egregious than they’ve ever been,” a smiling Romney told reporters while sitting in the back of his campaign bus, adding that when faced with a choice to either lie or tell the truth, he will more than likely lie. “It’s a strategy that works because when I lie, I’m essentially telling people what they want to hear, and people really like hearing things they want to hear. Even if they sort of know that nothing I’m saying is true.”

The case for raising taxes on capital gains

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/09/25/the-case-for-raising-taxes-on-capital-gains/

From Ezra Klein’s column:

As Dylan wrote on Monday, most — though not all — economists will tell you there’s a good theoretical case for taxing capital gains and investment income at a lower rate than normal income. Mitt Romney, in other words, should be paying a low tax rate.

But it’s also worth understanding why more and more tax wonks are wondering if the case holds up under current conditions. For one thing, the low rate on investment income has been an important contributor to rising inequality. In fact, it’s worked so well that if you want to tax the rich without ratcheting their earned income tax rate to extremely high levels, or reform the tax code without massively cutting taxes on the rich, the best option might be to raise capital gains taxes.

Fact Check: Romney Told 27 Myths in 38 Minutes During the Debate

http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/fact-check-romney-told-27-myths-38-minutes-during-debate?akid=9489.1117295.xkXbNR&rd=1&src=newsletter721973&t=3

“Pundits from both sides of the aisle have lauded Mitt Romney’s strong debate performance, praising his preparedness and ability to challenge President Obama’s policies and accomplishments. But Romney only accomplished this goal by repeatedly misleading viewers. He spoke for  38 minutes  of the 90 minute debate and told at least 27 myths.”

Rating Wednesday Night's Debate Whoppers

http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2012/10/obama-romney-debate-whoppers

From Mother Jones magazine:

Pundits largely took two things away from the debate last night: President Obama turned in a lackluster performance, and moderator Jim Lehrer let Mitt Romney walk all over him. A presidential debate moderator's job is not unlike a parent with two squabbling six-year-olds: While it's important to maintain neutrality, it's also necessary to find out which kid is lying about cutting the legs off all the Barbie dolls. Because Lehrer could hardly get a word in last night, let alone call out any questionable truths, we've done it for him: by comparing the statements made by Barack Obama and Mitt Romney on "The Whopper Scale." Five Whoppers means that the statement is complete baloney. One means that the statement is kind of tasteless, but basically real: So…like the beef you'll find in fast food restaurants!

The First Debate: Mitt Romney's Five Biggest Lies

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-first-debate-mitt-romneys-five-biggest-lies-20121004?link=mostpopular5

“Mitt Romney turned in a polished performance in last night's presidential debate – and revealed himself to be an accomplished and unapologetic liar. In an evening where he sought to slice and dice the president with statistics, Romney baldly misrepresented his own policy prescriptions, made up numbers to fit his attacks and buried clear contrasts with the president under a heaping pile of horseshit.”

Chris Matthews Goes After Jack Welch In Brutal Battle Over Unemployment Numbers

Chris Goes After Jack Welch

I enjoyed seeing Chris make Jack Welch look like the total fool he is:

“Former General Electric CEO Jack Welch appeared on Hardball with Chris Matthews on Friday to defend his assertion that the Bureau of Labor Statistics survey which surge in employment forcing the unemployment metric down from 8.1 percent to 7.8 percent is flawed. The interview between Matthews and Welch quickly descended into a heated debate over the veracity of the BLS figures and the charge that there was a corrupt effort to rig the unemployment rate to help President Barack Obama win reelection.”

The boy in the bubble

http://www.cjr.org/feature/boy_in_bubble.php?page=all&print=true

Nice profile of journalist Ezra Klein:

He’s impossibly young, infuriatingly accomplished, and impressively wonky. In a town full of journalistic flop sweat, he glides instead of glistens, handsome enough to make the ladies turn their heads, and affable enough that their boyfriends compete for his attentions, too. Like ripples around a stone, influential circles appear seemingly wherever he dips his toe. Washington insiders seek his ear, New York magazines compete for his byline, and older journalists puzzle over how he could master journalism’s technological revolution and the northeastern media corridor well shy of his 30th birthday.

Paul Krugman Takes a Flamethrower to Romney’s Lies About the Economy

http://www.politicususa.com/paul-krugman-takes-flamethrower-romneys-lies-economy.html

Krugman knocks it out of the park today on ABC’s This Week. His main line of attack was to challenge the verity of statements Romney made during the debate. It turned out to be a heated discussion, which is evidence that Krugman hit close to home. Great to see Mary Matalin and Peggy Noonan get so upset. It’s exhausting and frustrating to have to continue to defend Romney’s lies! Way to go Paul!

The Rumble 2012: Bill O'Reilly vs Jon Stewart (Full)

Bill O’Reilly vs Jon Stewart–The Rumble 2012

This is great – a must watch! If only the Presidential debate had been like this…sigh…

The return of fuzzy math

http://leanforward.msnbc.com/_news/2012/10/06/14259184-the-return-of-fuzzy-math?chromedomain=UpwithChrisHayes

Quoting from the site – excellent analysis:

The contemporary Republican party faces a fundamental political problem and it is this: the policy position to which the party is most committed is very unpopular. Over the last decade the single most urgent, durable domestic priority of the Republican Party is reducing taxes on wealthy Americans. If there is one thing you can bank on when the Republicans are in power, it's that.

So if you're a Republican seeking the highest office in the land, you've got a real problem. On the one hand you absolutely have to advocate for and push through tax cuts for the wealthy, knowing full well the electorate as a whole does not like or want them. So what do you do?  Well, up until this point, Mitt Romney has floundered a bit, but Wednesday at the debate, he fully embraced the very effective strategy used by the last man to successfully pull off this particular bait and switch: George W. Bush. The centerpiece of Bush's campaign was a large tax cut, skewed heavily to the wealthy. But rather than defend this principle of tax cuts for the wealthy, he simply obfuscated and hand waved and misled about his tax cuts' effects.

Bush: Everybody who pays taxes ought to get tax relief. After my plan is in place, the wealthiest Americans will pay a higher percentage of taxes then they do today, and the poorest of Americans, six million families, seven million people won't pay any tax at all.

Notice the sleight of hand. The wealthiest Americans will pay a higher percentage of taxes than they do today. Not a higher percentage of their income in taxes, since that would be an outright lie. This is a very common bit of conservative misdirection used to hide the distributional unfairness of their tax cuts. 

Even in Herman Cain's regressive world of a 9-9-9 flat tax, you can imagine that with enough concetration of income at the top, the wealthiest households would still pay the majority of total income-tax revenue. That doesn't reflect how progressive or fair the taxation system is, it reflects just how unequal incomes are. Bush did it again in the next debate, too.

Under my plan, if you make -- the top -- the wealthy people pay 62% of the taxes today. Afterwards they pay 64%. This is a fair plan. You know why? Because the tax code is unfair for people at the bottom end of the economic ladder. If you're a single mother making $22,000 a year today and you're trying to raise two children, for every additional dollar you earn you pay a higher marginal rate on that dollar than someone making $200,000, and that's not right.

At the time, this drove observers to distraction. Bush was running on a huge tax cut for the wealthy and refusing to admit he was running on a huge tax cut for the wealthy. Paul Krugman nearly broke his keyboard writing column after column pointing this simple fact out. "The big lesson of this year's campaign," he wrote, "a lesson that we can be sure politicians will take to heart -- is that a candidate can get away with saying things that are demonstrably untrue, as long as the untruths involve big numbers."

The Real Referendum

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/01/opinion/krugman-the-real-referendum.html?smid=tw-NytimesKrugman&seid=auto

Paul Krugman writes in the NYT regarding what’s at stake in the upcoming election:

Voters are, in effect, being asked to deliver a verdict on the legacy of the New Deal and the Great Society, on Social Security, Medicare and, yes, Obamacare, which represents an extension of that legacy.

And this is why President Obama should not re-negotiate (to quote Krugman) a “Grand Bargain over the budget deficit:”

First, despite years of dire warnings from people like, well, Alan Simpson and Erskine Bowles, we are not facing any kind of fiscal crisis. Indeed, U.S. borrowing costs are at historic lows, with investors actually willing to pay the government for the privilege of owning inflation-protected bonds. So reducing the budget deficit just isn’t the top priority for America at the moment; creating jobs is. For now, the administration’s political capital should be devoted to passing something like last year’s American Jobs Act and providing effective mortgage debt relief.

Second, contrary to Beltway conventional wisdom, America does not have an “entitlements problem.” Mainly, it has a health cost problem, private as well as public, which must be addressed (and which the Affordable Care Act at least starts to address). It’s true that there’s also, even aside from health care, a gap between the services we’re promising and the taxes we’re collecting — but to call that gap an “entitlements” issue is already to accept the very right-wing frame that voters appear to be in the process of rejecting.

Finally, despite the bizarre reverence it inspires in Beltway insiders — the same people, by the way, who assured us that Paul Ryan was a brave truth-teller — the fact is that Simpson-Bowles is a really bad plan, one that would undermine some key pieces of our safety net. And if a re-elected president were to endorse it, he would be betraying the trust of the voters who returned him to office.

What’s Proposed in the American Jobs Act

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Jobs_Act

Robert Samuelson Wants the Government to Stop Trying to Help People Into the Middle Class

http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/beat-the-press/robert-samuelson-wants-the-government-to-stop-trying-to-help-people-into-the-middle-class

I always enjoy Dean Baker’s Beat the Press column – here’s he’s commenting on a Robert Samuelson Newsweek column --

This piece also includes a line about the risks of the Fed's expansionary policy:

"The most significant [risk] is that the Fed’s efforts heat up economic growth in a way that unleashes inflation, which would eat away at middle-class incomes."

Actually it is very difficult to imagine inflation taking a form that would "eat away at middle-class incomes." If the economy heats up in the way described, it means that unemployment would fall sharply, leading to more rapid wage growth. This rapid wage growth would be the factor driving inflation. Since most middle income people get most of their income from wages, if wages are rising rapidly, it is unlikely that their income would be eroding. Most middle income retirees get most of their income from Social Security which is indexed to inflation, so these people would be largely protected as well.

The big losers from higher than expected inflation would be lenders, like the Wall Street banks, who have large amounts of loans outstanding that would suddenly be worth much less in a higher inflation environment. This is a reason why Wall Street is generally a forceful lobby against higher inflation.

At one point the piece refers to Bernanke's "grueling" years at the Fed. It is worth pointing out that the main reason the years have been grueling is that Bernanke and Greenspan failed to recognize the housing bubble (Bernanke was a Fed governor from 2002 to 2005) and to take steps to deflate it before it grew large enough to do so much damage to the economy. In other words, he is cleaning up his own mess.

Cherry picking (fallacy)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherry_picking_%28fallacy%29

This is probably the most common logical fallacy committed in the political realm:

Cherry picking, suppressing evidence, or the fallacy of incomplete evidence is the act of pointing to individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position, while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position. It is a kind of fallacy of selective attention, the most common example of which is the confirmation bias. Cherry picking may be committed unintentionally.[1]

Comparing Income, Corporate, Capital Gains Tax Rates: 1916-2011

From Visualizing Economics website – excellent graph:

http://visualizingeconomics.com/2012/01/24/comparing-tax-rates

Inequality and Growth

http://jaredbernsteinblog.com/inequality-and-growth/

From Jared Bernstein blog:

“The figure below plots yearly real GDP growth and the share of income going to the top 1%, 1929-2010.  The long inequality series follows a U (as opposed to an inverted U), as broadly speaking, post New Deal reforms and institutions (collective bargaining, minimum wages, safety net, social insurance), spreading industrialization, full employment job markets, and less globalization all led to more broadly shared growth until the 1970s.”

The 386,000 jobs we didn't know about

http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2012/09/27/14125453-the-386000-jobs-we-didnt-know-about?lite

From Steve Benen at the Rachel Maddow Show blog:

As a political matter, Pat Garofalo notes another salient angle: even if the early 2009 job losses are held against President Obama, he's now broken into positive territory for his first term. It also means more jobs were created in Obama's first four years than during George W. Bush's first four years -- and Bush didn't inherit a global economic catastrophe.

Graph: Job Growth – Overall Economy, 2008-Present

Fact 16a/7b: Temporary Spending Increases Are Not What Drives Long-Term Budget Deficits

http://jaredbernsteinblog.com/fact-16a7b-temporary-spending-increases-are-not-what-drives-long-term-budget-deficits/

It’s of course true that the stimulus (no quotes necessary, WSJ–it was real…and it worked) led to higher deficit spending when it was in place.  That’s the point.  In order to offset the private sector contraction, the public sector needs to TEMPORARILY ramp up economic activity, and it must do so with borrowed money (to raise taxes or cut spending to pay for stimulus would be to reverse its impact).

But the key word is “temporary.”  As seen in the figure below (or figure 1 in the link above), it’s not the stuff that gets in and out of the system that hurts you, deficit-wise.  It’s the stuff that stays in and isn’t paid for, like the Bush tax cuts, which continue to be the big story re what’s driving the medium-term budget deficit.

Above graph from Jared Bernstein: Recovery Act’s Contribution to the Deficit as Share of GDP 1009-19

Ryan's 'Secret' Tape Is Even More Extreme Than Romney's

http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/ryans-secret-tape-even-more-extreme-romneys?akid=9449.1117295.ZTfZoe&rd=1&src=newsletter716901&t=13&paging=off

“When they booed Paul Ryan at the American Association of Retired Persons last week, most people didn't even know he called Medicare and Social Security "third party or socialist-based systems." Or that he said he wants to privatize them in order to "break the back" of a "collectivist philosophy."”

Corporate Profits After Tax

From FRED (St. Louis Federal Reserve):

The Koch brothers graph

http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2011/09/23/7927178-the-koch-brothers-graph?lite

From Rachel Maddow show blog:

Several people wrote and/or tweeted after last night's show looking for the source data on the chart above showing the relationship between the Koch brothers' net worth and the number of people they employ. I didn't have a single link for it in the links list because I couldn't find a single source for the information. Luckily, however, I do have the advantage of a single secondary source. I walked over and asked Mike Yarvitz who produced the segment.

The net worth of the Koch "job creators" comes from the individual profiles of the Forbes 400 list, with the worth of each brother added together. We took just the October number for each year.

The employee number comes for different souces depending on the year but basically the source is Koch Industries itself. In their current company description they say, "With a presence in nearly 60 countries and about 67,000 employees..." So that's where the 67,000 number comes from for 2011 on the chart. But the 2007 number comes from this 2007 Forbes profile of Koch Industries in which they are ascribed 80,000 employees.

Mitt Tells the Truth

http://billmoyers.com/2012/09/21/mitt-tells-the-truth/

Like everyone else, we watched the movie of the week — that clandestine video from Mitt Romney’s fundraiser in Florida. Thanks to that anonymous cameraperson, we now have a record of what our modern day, wealthy gentry really thinks about the rest of us — and it’s not pretty.

On the other hand, it’s also not news. If you had reported as long as some of us have on winner-take-all politics and the unenlightened assumptions of the moneyed class, you wouldn’t find the remarks of Romney and his pals all that exceptional. The resentment, disdain and contempt with which they privately view those beneath them are an old story.

In 2011, Romney made $14 million while being unemployed

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/09/21/in-2011-romney-made-14-million-while-being-unemployed/

Can you imagine the meeting at Romney campaign HQ where they decided that Romney should pay extra taxes in order to avoid contradicting his statement that he’d paid at least 13 percent for the last decade? What were the pros and the cons like in that debate? Was there sobbing?

9 Things to Know About Mitt Romney's Tax Returns

http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2012/09/mitt-romney-tax-returns?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Motherjones%2Fmojoblog+%28MotherJones.com+|+MoJoBlog%29

The Romney campaign released what it says are the effective tax rates Romney paid for the past two decades. His effective tax rate was calculated based on his Adjusted Gross Income. That's standard, but in Romney's case, it doesn't tell the whole story. The Romney campaign is reporting the percentage of Romney's AGI that he paid to the government, explains Brian Galle, an associate professor at Boston College Law School who is an expert on individual and corporate income tax. AGI is the number you get after you take certain, limited deductions. The most relevant of these deductions for Romney are losses from the sale or exchange of property. That could include stock or partnership interests in Bain Capital and associated companies that were sold at a loss. The Romney campaign is disclosing the percentage of tax he paid "on the amount he got after he subtracted out all those losses," which could have been very substantial, Galle says—perhaps even enough to almost eliminate Romney's tax liability. That means that although Romney paid at least something in previous years, it could have been a very small amount. "He could have been paying 13.66 percent of $100 in 2009. He might have paid $13.66," Galle continues. We won't know unless the Romney campaign releases more information.

Bill Clinton Daily Show Interview Includes Remarks On DNC Speech, Criticism Of Mitt Romney

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/21/bill-clinton-daily-show_n_1903794.html

Bill Clinton looked back on his energizing speech from the 2012 Democratic National Convention on The Daily Show Thursday night.

“I was just determined to get the facts right and to simplify the argument without being simplistic,” Clinton told host Jon Stewart. “I didn’t want to talk down to people. I wanted to explain what I thought was going on.”

Romney Offers New Tax Details

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444032404578010451626055738.html?mod=WSJ_hps_LEFTTopStories

The WSJ published this – proves that Romney (in his own words) is NOT qualified to become president:

David Kautter, managing director of the Kogod Tax Center at American University, estimates that if the Romneys had taken the full $4 million deduction for their charitable contributions instead of the $2.25 million they took, their effective tax rate would have been about 10.5%. Mr. Kautter estimated that Mr. Romney overpaid his federal income tax by nearly $500,000.

In a July interview with ABC News, Mr. Romney said he had paid all that he owed, but no more. "I've paid all the taxes required by law," Mr. Romney said. "I don't pay more than are legally due and, frankly, if I had paid more than are legally due I don't think I'd be qualified to become president."

Number of Unemployed Persons per Job Opening

Chart from Jared Bernstein’s blog:

Paul Ryan talks Medicare, gets mixed reception at AARP convention

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/decision2012/paul-ryan-talks-medicare-gets-mixed-reception-at-aarp-convention/2012/09/21/c60bad6a-0415-11e2-9b24-ff730c7f6312_story.html

The crowd was silent for most of Ryan’s speech and applauded him as he took and left the stage. But some attendees responded with loud disapproval of Ryan’s criticisms of Obama as well as during some of his descriptions of his own Medicare plan.

At one point, when Ryan told the ballroom that “all that we need now is leaders who have the political will to save and strengthen Social Security,” one man loudly quipped: “Got one!”

At other points in his speech, scattered attendees yelled out, “No vouchers!” and “Tax the one percent!”

Paul Weyrich's Troika Reunited: ALEC Partners with Republican Study Committee at Heritage Foundation

 

http://www.prwatch.org/node/11752

Three right-wing organizations founded nearly forty years ago by conservative activist Paul Weyrich are rediscovering their shared origins. The Republican Study Committee, a caucus of 169 right-wing Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives, is establishing a partnership with the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), the controversial "corporate bill mill" for state legislators, and their first meeting is scheduled at the Heritage Foundation headquarters. Each of those three organizations -- the RSC, ALEC, and the Heritage Foundation -- were founded in 1973 by Weyrich. (Weyrich passed away in 2008.)

Prosperity Economics - Building an economy for All

http://www.prosperityforamerica.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/prosperity-for-all.pdf

The United States faces two pressing economic prob-
lems. The first is immediate: Almost five years after
the financial collapse, joblessness remains rampant
and the economy is recovering far too slowly. The
second problem is deeper: the breaking of the his-
torical connection between growing economic output, on
the one hand, and middle-class wages and income, on the
other. Over the last generation, the productivity of
American workers—output per hour of work—grew
substantially. Yet, in a sharp break with the past, wag-
es for most workers stopped rising in tandem with
productivity. The gains of economic growth instead
accrued disproportionately to affluent Americans.
Along with these increased economic gains, wealthy
Americans, large corporations, and Wall Street also
gained greater political clout relative to the American
middle class.

MISCONCEPTIONS AND REALITIES ABOUT WHO PAYS TAXES

http://www.cbpp.org/files/5-26-11tax.pdf

Close to half of U.S. households currently do not owe federal income tax.  The Urban Institute-Brookings Tax Policy Center estimates that 46 percent of households will owe no federal income tax for 2011. 1  A widely cited figure is a Joint Committee on Taxation estimate that 51 percent of
households paid no federal income tax in 2009.2  (The TPC figure for 2009 also is 51 percent.) 3 These figures are sometimes cited as evidence that low- and moderate-income families do not pay sufficient taxes.  Yet these figures, their significance, and their policy implications are widely misunderstood.

Reassessing the impact of finance on growth

http://sirc.rbi.org.in/downloads/4Cecchetti.pdf

This paper investigates how financial development affects growth at both the country and the
industry level. Based on a sample of developed and emerging economies, we first show that
the level of financial development is good only up to a point, after which it becomes a drag on
growth. Second, focusing on advanced economies, we show that a fast-growing financial
sector can be detrimental to aggregate productivity growth. Finally, looking at industry-level
data, we show that financial sector growth disproportionately harms industries that are either
financially dependent or R&D-intensive.

Why Some Tax Units Pay No Income Tax

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/UploadedPDF/1001547-Why-No-Income-Tax.pdf

About 46 percent of American households will pay no federal individual income tax in 2011,
roughly half of them because of structural features of the income tax that provide basic
exemptions for subsistence level income and for dependents. The other half are nontaxable
because tax expenditures— special provisions of the tax code that benefit selected taxpayers or
activities—wipe out tax liabilities and, in the case of refundable credits, result in net payments
from the government. Most important of those tax expenditures are provisions that benefit senior
citizens and low-income working families with children. While those factors particularly affect
lower-income households, different provisions eliminate taxes for other households. Itemized
deductions and credits for children and education are more important for middle-income
households, while the relatively few high-income nontaxable households benefit most from
above-the-line and itemized deductions and reduced tax rates on capital gains and dividends.

Bullies At The Ballot Box: Protecting The Freedom To Vote Against Wrongful Challenges And Intimidation

http://www.demos.org/publication/bullies-ballot-box-protecting-freedom-vote-against-wrongful-challenges-and-intimidation

Protecting the freedom to vote for all eligible Americans is of fundamental importance in a democracy founded upon the consent of the governed. One of the most serious threats to the protection of that essential right is the increase in organized efforts, led by groups such as the Tea Party affiliated True the Vote and others, to challenge voters’ eligibility at the polls and through pre-election challenges. Eligible Americans have a civic duty to vote, and government at the federal, state, and local level has a responsibility to protect voters from illegal interference and intimidation.

Bill Clinton Was Right That Dems Create More Jobs Than GOPers -- and Here's the Scoreboard for Good Jobs Making Real Things

http://www.alternet.org/economy/bill-clinton-was-right-dems-create-more-jobs-gopers-and-heres-scoreboard-good-jobs-making?akid=9416.1117295.l0-GGk&rd=1&src=newsletter712820&t=20&paging=off

“Since President Bill Clinton’s September 5 speech to the Democratic National Convention, a great deal of attention has centered on his claim that, since 1961, the “jobs score” during seven Republican and six Democratic presidential terms amounts to 24 million for the Republicans and 42 million for the Democrats. The fact checkers have given these numbers their approval (see, for example, the Bloomberg verdict and The Tampa Bay Times PolitiFact evaluation), although some critics (e.g., The Washington Post) have questioned whether they are meaningful as a verdict on policy differences between the two parties.”

Joseph Stiglitz Calls to Abolish the Capitalist Church of Self-Interest

http://www.alternet.org/economy/joseph-stiglitz-calls-abolish-capitalist-church-self-interest?akid=9427.1117295.faSWN0&rd=1&src=newsletter714105&t=5&paging=off

“Every society grapples with moral issues,” said Johnson as he introduced Stiglitz. “And Joe might be our ‘Grappler-in-Chief.’”

The Grappler-in-Chief got interested in economics not because he was dazzled by mathematical equations, but because he wanted to find a way to solve the sociological problems he saw growing up in Gary, Indiana, where he noticed that discrimination stood in the way of America’s ideal of equal opportunity for all. His parents told him that the two most important things in life were to use your mind and see what you could do to serve others. And so he did both.

Lately Stiglitz has focused on the alarming gap in the U.S. between those at the top and everyone else, an interest which led to a prescient Vanity Fair article on the dominance of the 1 percent in May 2011, and most recently to a new book, The Price of Inequality. Commenting on Mitt Romney’s declaration that 47 percent of the nation was nothing more than freeloaders, Stiglitz said, “the real divide is between those who see the country as a community and those who don’t.”

Chaos on Bulls**t Mountain–Jon Stewart on The Daily Show

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-september-19-2012/chaos-on-bulls--t-mountain?xrs=eml_tds

“In the 48 hours since the Romney video first gained wide exposure, turd containment crews at Fox News have been working overtime on Bulls**t Mountain.”

Nine Wall Street Journal Op-Ed Writers Who Weren't Disclosed As Romney Advisers

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2012/09/19/nine-wall-street-journal-op-ed-writers-who-were/189979

“The Wall Street Journal has published op-eds from nine writers without disclosing their roles as advisers to Mitt Romney's presidential campaign. The op-eds attack President Obama and his administration or discuss Romney on a range of topics like the economy, health care, education and foreign policy.

According to a Media Matters review, the Journal published a total of 20 pieces from the following Romney advisers without disclosing their campaign ties: John Bolton; Max Boot; Lee A. Casey; Paula Dobriansky; Mary Ann Glendon; Glenn Hubbard; Paul E. Peterson; David B. Rivkin Jr.; and Martin West. In several instances, the Journal failed to disclose an op-ed writer's connection despite its own news section reporting that the writer is advising Romney.”

Romney’s theory of the “taker class,” and why it matters

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/09/17/romneys-theory-of-the-taker-class-and-why-it-matters/?print=1

“My job is not to worry about those people,” Mitt Romney said of the 47 percent of Americans who are likely to vote for Barack Obama. “I’ll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives.”

There will be plenty said about the politics of Romney’s remarks. But I want to take a moment and talk about the larger argument behind them, because this vision of a society divided between “makers” and “takers” is core to the Republican nominee’s policy agenda.

SECRET VIDEO: On Israel, Romney Trashes Two-State Solution

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/09/romney-secret-video-israeli-palestinian-middle-east-peace

“Here's Romney's full response; he starts out saying he has "two perspectives," but as he answers the question, it turns out that's not really the case:

I'm torn by two perspectives in this regard. One is the one which I've had for some time, which is that the Palestinians have no interest whatsoever in establishing peace, and that the pathway to peace is almost unthinkable to accomplish. Now why do I say that? Some might say, well, let's let the Palestinians have the West Bank, and have security, and set up a separate nation for the Palestinians. And then come a couple of thorny questions. And I don't have a map here to look at the geography, but the border between Israel and the West Bank is obviously right there, right next to Tel Aviv, which is the financial capital, the industrial capital of Israel, the center of Israel. It's—what the border would be? Maybe seven miles from Tel Aviv to what would be the West Bank…The other side of the West Bank, the other side of what would be this new Palestinian state would either be Syria at one point, or Jordan. And of course the Iranians would want to do through the West Bank exactly what they did through Lebanon, what they did near Gaza. Which is that the Iranians would want to bring missiles and armament into the West Bank and potentially threaten Israel. So Israel of course would have to say, "That can't happen. We've got to keep the Iranians from bringing weaponry into the West Bank." Well, that means that—who? The Israelis are going to patrol the border between Jordan, Syria, and this new Palestinian nation? Well, the Palestinians would say, "Uh, no way! We're an independent country. You can't, you know, guard our border with other Arab nations." And now how about the airport? How about flying into this Palestinian nation? Are we gonna allow military aircraft to come in and weaponry to come in? And if not, who's going to keep it from coming in? Well, the Israelis. Well, the Palestinians are gonna say, "We're not an independent nation if Israel is able to come in and tell us what can land in our airport." These are problems—these are very hard to solve, all right? And I look at the Palestinians not wanting to see peace anyway, for political purposes, committed to the destruction and elimination of Israel, and these thorny issues, and I say, "There's just no way." And so what you do is you say, "You move things along the best way you can." You hope for some degree of stability, but you recognize that this is going to remain an unsolved problem. We live with that in China and Taiwan. All right, we have a potentially volatile situation but we sort of live with it, and we kick the ball down the field and hope that ultimately, somehow, something will happen and resolve it. We don't go to war to try and resolve it imminently. On the other hand, I got a call from a former secretary of state. I won't mention which one it was, but this individual said to me, you know, I think there's a prospect for a settlement between the Palestinians and the Israelis after the Palestinian elections. I said, "Really?" And, you know, his answer was, "Yes, I think there's some prospect." And I didn't delve into it.”

Mitt, Meet the 47%

http://www.aflcio.org/Blog/Mitt-Meet-the-47

“Just who was Mitt Romney referring to in his secretly recorded comments at a Boca Raton, Fla., fundraiser as people who don’t “take personal responsibility and care for themselves”?

    61 percent of them work but don’t earn enough to owe income tax.
    17 percent are students (who will pay plenty of taxes once they’re out of school), military families, people with disabilities and people who have lost their jobs—including victims of outsourcers like, well, Mitt Romney.
    22 percent are elderly.”

The U.S. Is Selling More Stuff Than Ever To The Rest Of The World

http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2012/09/17/161275166/the-u-s-is-selling-more-stuff-than-ever-to-the-rest-of-the-world

“The economy is not doing well. Unemployment is high, homes are worth what they were in 2003, and growth is weak.

But one sector is doing great: exports. They've been growing about four times as fast as the overall economy since the beginning of 2010.

This is part of a longer-term trend. Despite the myth that the U.S. doesn't make anything anymore, U.S. exports have actually been contributing a larger and larger share of the U.S. economy since the 1970s.”

Inside the campaign: How Mitt Romney stumbled

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0912/81280.html

“Stuart Stevens, Mitt Romney’s top strategist, knew his candidate’s convention speech needed a memorable mix of loft and grace if he was going to bound out of Tampa with an authentic chance to win the presidency. So Stevens, bypassing the speechwriting staff at the campaign’s Boston headquarters, assigned the sensitive task of drafting it to Peter Wehner, a veteran of the last three Republican White Houses and one of the party’s smarter wordsmiths.

Stevens junked the entire thing, setting off a chaotic, eight-day scramble that would produce an hour of prime-time problems for Romney, including Clint Eastwood’s meandering monologue to an empty chair.”