jobsanger

Racial Sisyphus

noreply@blogger.com (Ted McLaughlin) — Sat, 28 Jan 2012 06:05:00 +0000

The truth of this cartoon from the website Ampersand is obvious. Too many white Americans think if racial problems are hidden or ignored then everything will be all right. It won't! The race problems still endemic in America will not be solved until we make an effort to help roll that rock up the hill (eliminate racism).

Romney Leading Florida - Losing Nationally

noreply@blogger.com (Ted McLaughlin) — Sat, 28 Jan 2012 06:04:00 +0000

It looks like Republican voters, at least in South Carolina and Florida, love "attack-dog" politics. In the waning days of the GOP campaign in South Carolina, Newt Gingrich unleashed his inner attack-dog and snatched the primary away from Mitt Romney (who was leading there immediately after New Hampshire). Now the tables have been turned.

After winning the South Carolina primary, Gingrich jumped out to a substantial lead in Florida. But while Gingrich turned the heat down in the last two Florida debates (probably thinking he was protecting a lead), Romney did the opposite -- releasing his own inner attack-dog and going after Gingrich in the debates. And it looks like it is working. The last few days have seen polls showing Romney is regaining the lead in Florida.

Now two new Florida polls have been released that show Romney is firmly back in the lead. Here are the results from those two polls:

QUINNIPIAC UNIVERSITY POLL
Mitt Romney...............38%
Newt Romney...............29%
Ron Paul...............14%
Rick Santorum...............12%
Other/Undecided...............7%

SUNSHINE STATE NEWS POLL
Mitt Romney...............40%
Newt Gingrich...............31%
Rick Santorum...............12%
Ron Paul...............9%
Other/Undecided...............7%

But even if Romney does win in Florida, it probably won't give him the substantial leg-up in the race he was originally hoping for. That's because the GOP has declared that any state holding a primary (or caucus) before April must assign delegates proportionally or lose half of their delegates. Since the Florida GOP has decided to maintain their winner-take-all status, that means they will only have 50 delegates to award the winner instead of their full 99.

Winning 50 delegates would put Romney back in the lead in the delegate count, but it would not be an insurmountable lead. And Gingrich is maintaining a nationwide lead over Romney -- a lead larger than the margin of error in the polls. Here are the two latest national polls for the GOP race:

GALLUP POLL
Newt Gingrich...............32%
Mitt Romney...............24%
Ron Paul...............14%
Rick Santorum...............13%

NBC NEWS/WALL STREET JOURNAL POLL
Newt Gingrich...............37%
Mitt Romney...............28%
Rick Santorum...............18%
Ron Paul...............12%

There is still a good possibility that this race could be decided at a brokered Republican convention. It is likely that Paul will do well in the caucus states, and could even top his expected percentage. His supporters are true believers and he has a good track record of getting them out to attend caucuses. Add that to Gingrich's current popularity among teabaggers and evangelicals (strong in the South and Midwest), and it is possible that Romney won't be able to get more than half the delegates.

Dividing America

noreply@blogger.com (Ted McLaughlin) — Sat, 28 Jan 2012 06:03:00 +0000

Political Cartoon is by Jim Morin in The Miami Herald.

Republicans Are Wrong About Taxes

noreply@blogger.com (Ted McLaughlin) — Sat, 28 Jan 2012 06:02:00 +0000

When Mitt Romney released his 2010 tax return last Tuesday most people were shocked to find that although he made millions of dollars, he only paid a tax rate of 13.9% -- far below what most middle class families would pay. Mitt and his Republican cohorts have been scrambling to justify his tiny tax rate. They say it's just free enterprise and is legal. They are right about the legality, but what they failed to say is that they are the ones who made it legal. It was a part of the Bush tax cuts that lowered the capital gains rate so low (while keeping the rates on earned income much higher), thus giving the super-rich a break that working people don't get.

About a third of Romney's income (about $7.4 million) was from something called carried interest, which is currently taxed as a capital gain with a 15% tax rate. But most top investors, both here and in other countries, don't think that is fair. They think carried interest should be taxed at a higher rate. That was the majority opinion in a poll of 1,209 investors by Bloomberg News on January 23rd and 24th. Here are the results:

Worldwide Investors
15% rate is justified...............21%
15% rate not justified...............66%

United States investors
15% rate is justified...............27%
15% rate not justified...............67%

As we can see, even a representative sample of Mitt's fellow investors think he should be paying more in taxes. This shouldn't really surprise us, since multi-billionaires Warren Buffett and Bill Gates have both been calling for higher taxes for the rich. In addition, a group of millionaires have joined them in asking for higher taxes. It looks like there are some of the rich that appreciate what this country has allowed them to do and want to pay their fair share of taxes to help those who haven't been as fortunate.

But those people aren't alone in calling for higher taxes for the rich. In his State of the Union speech President Obama called for the rich to pay a minimum tax rate of 30%. And a majority of Americans agree with the president. In a new Rasmussen Poll (a poll known to lean toward Republicans), it was shown that 55% of the population agrees with the president, while only 32% disagree. Other polls have shown an even larger percentage calling for higher taxes on the rich.

I'm sure most Republicans in Congress are in that 32%, because their solution to every problem facing this country is to cut taxes for the richest Americans. But they are swimming against the current on this issue, and if they don't temper their tax-cutting efforts for the rich they could find themselves at a serious disadvantage in the coming elections.

The Democrats are in the power position on this issue, and the weird part is that they could significantly raise taxes on the rich by simply doing nothing (except blocking Republican efforts to cut those taxes). The Bush tax cuts, which mainly benefitted the rich, not only lowered the top tax rate for earned income but also lowered the tax rate for capital gains. All the Democrats have to do is let those cuts expire at the end of this year.

As the chart above (from Under The Mountain Bunker) shows, letting the Bush tax cuts expire combined with a raise in the capital gains rate already approved in the Affordable Care Act and another provision that limits deductions for the rich would effectively raise the capital gains tax to about 25% in January of 2013. It wouldn't be quite up to the 30% President Obama wants, but it would be a good start (and if the Democrats hold their ground it couldn't be stopped by the Republicans).

The Democrats have the public on their side in this issue, and if they're smart they beat the drums on this all the way to election day. If they can get some more Democrats elected in November, maybe they can up the minimum tax rate for the rich to at least 30%. If not, at least they can make sure the minimum rate goes to about 25%.

No Punishment

noreply@blogger.com (Ted McLaughlin) — Sat, 28 Jan 2012 06:01:00 +0000

Political Cartoon is by David Fitzsimmons in the Arizona Daily Star.

Changes

noreply@blogger.com (Ted McLaughlin) — Fri, 27 Jan 2012 06:07:00 +0000

The first three changes to the Pledge of Allegiance were rather innocuous and appropriate for the secular government established by the Founding Fathers. The fourth however, was divisive and added a theocratic element to the pledge -- making it no longer applicable to a significant portion of the population. How can such an exclusionary change be a good thing?

Florida Primary Could Be A Toss-Up

noreply@blogger.com (Ted McLaughlin) — Fri, 27 Jan 2012 06:06:00 +0000

There are those who thought the Republican race could be pretty much over by the time it got to Florida (only the fourth state to vote). These people thought Romney would be well on his way to winning the nomination by now. But they underestimated one thing -- the depth of the teabagger/evangelicals' dislike for Mitt Romney. These "anti-Romney" forces have bent over backward and gone through a long list of hopefuls in the hopes of finding another candidate -- any other candidate to avoid voting for Romney.

The teabagger/evangelicals finally coalesced around a candidate and gave Newt Gingrich a big win in that state. Gingrich is a seriously flawed candidate, but he had one advantage -- he was not Mitt Romney. Now, in another three days the people of Florida get their say in the primary race.

Florida is turning out to be the most interesting primary yet. Mitt Romney started out with a large lead in Florida. Then after South Carolina, Newt Gingrich jumped into a large lead. Now Romney seems to be mounting something of a comeback. The latest polls show Romney is either tied with Gingrich or has regained the lead. Even respected poll analyst Nate Silver says the race in Florida could go either way (although he now has Romney with a slight advantage, but one within the margin of error). It could all turn on what Florida voters think about last night's debate. Here are the latest two polls:

CNN/TIME/ORC POLL
Mitt Romney...............36%
Newt Gingrich...............34%
Rick Santorum...............11%
Ron Paul...............9%
None/No opinion...............11%

RASMUSSEN POLL
Mitt Romney...............39%
Newt Gingrich...............31%
Rick Santorum...............12%
Ron Paul...............9%
Other/Undecided...............11%

The South Carolina and now Florida primaries have exposed that there is a clear divide in the Republican Party. I'll call them the "Romneys" (establishment and moderate Republicans) and the "anti-Romneys" (the teabaggers and evangelicals). The "Romneys" want as mainstream a candidate as possible. They don't want a candidate that could hurt them down-ballot. On the other hand, the "anti-Romneys" want to move the party far to the right by choosing an ultra-right-wing candidate. Ideology is more important to them than electoral possibilities.

Next Tuesday one of these groups will come out on the short end, and whichever it is, their candidate will have a much more difficult path to the nomination. That has both camps worried. If Gingrich wins then the campaign is likely to be an extended one and could even go to a brokered convention. Amazingly, there is still talk of a new candidate -- if not now, then at the convention. The "Romneys" will want someone like Mitch Daniels, Chris Christie, or Jeb Bush.

And the "anti-Romneys" may still be open for a new candidate too -- especially if Mitt Romney wins in Florida. My fellow Texas blogger over at Half Empty recently got polled by some Republican-leaning organization (they thought he was a right-winger I guess) that wanted to know what he would think of Sen. Jim DeMint as a presidential candidate.

I could never vote for a Republican (thanks to the DNA I got from my father and both grandfathers who also never voted GOP), but I have to admit this Republican race has gotten more interesting with each passing day. It's kind of like passing a wreck on the freeway -- you don't want to slow down and look, but you just can't help doing it.

Perhaps the most incisive comment on the Republican presidential race was made by Fidel Castro. He said:

I must point out that the campaign to select a Republican candidate as the possible future president of this globalized and far-reaching empire has become —I say this in all seriousness— the greatest competition of idiocy and ignorance that has ever been heard.

I think he's right.

Who represents The Poor ?

noreply@blogger.com (Ted McLaughlin) — Fri, 27 Jan 2012 06:05:00 +0000

Political Cartoon is by Pat Bagley in the Salt Lake Tribune.

Is Bachmann Done ?

noreply@blogger.com (Ted McLaughlin) — Fri, 27 Jan 2012 06:04:00 +0000

I don't think many people on either side of the political spectrum gave Michele Bachmann much of a chance of getting the Republican nomination for the presidency, let alone unseating President Obama, when she tossed her tin-foil hat in the ring last year. And she lived down to those expectations, running a disastrous mistake-prone campaign. After a brief flirtation with her in the Iowa straw poll, even the teabaggers realized her campaign was a joke and they abandoned her. After competing in only one state (Iowa), she realized the impossibility of her situation and dropped out of the race.

But Bachmann and her few supporters were not ready for her to fade into history. She liked her brief time in the spotlight and wanted more of it. For a brief time, there was some hope she would enter the senate race against Amy Klobuchar. But poll results quickly ended that dream. For example, the Public Policy Polling survey in Minnesota showed Bachmann trailing Klobuchar by 58% to 35% -- a whopping 23 point deficit.

In fact, it seems that her pitiful presidential run has ruined any hope she might have had at a statewide office. Only 34% of Minnesotans view her favorably now, while 57% view her negatively. And most Minnesota voters don't even want her to run for her old House seat again either -- with 57% saying she shouldn't run and only 37% saying she should run.

Bachmann has decided to defy the statewide verdict on her candidacy, and she has announced she will be running for re-election to the House of Representatives. Could she be re-elected to Congress? Has her disastrous and embarrassing run for the presidential nomination hurt her in the district she would represent? Nobody knows, because the Minnesota congressional redistricting has not been completed. No one else has announced a run for her House seat yet, but that is probably because no one knows just where the district lines will be yet.

I suspect she has suffered some damage from her presidential run, but we won't know how serious that damage is until the district lines are finalized and we see who will be running against her. Let's hope the Democrats are able to find and finance a strong candidate in her district.

Vulture Piracy

noreply@blogger.com (Ted McLaughlin) — Fri, 27 Jan 2012 06:03:00 +0000

Political Cartoon is by Keith Tucker at whatnowtoons.com.

About Capitalism

noreply@blogger.com (Ted McLaughlin) — Fri, 27 Jan 2012 06:02:00 +0000

It will come as no surprise to readers of this blog that I am a left-winger when it comes to economics and politics. I would not be adverse to even being described as a socialist. But that does not mean that I am opposed to all capitalism, or don't believe people should be allowed to better themselves by making money -- even a lot of money.

But I am opposed to an unregulated capitalism, where the rich (the holders of the capital) are allowed to pervert the system and hog all of the profits of the system, leaving workers with barely enough to survive. To me, that is simply economic slavery. A regulated capitalist system is much better because it not only allows the rich to make lots of money, but it also allows the workers to share in the benefits of their own labor.

The blog worldwide hippies has just posted an excellent article on regulated or managed capitalism (and why it must be regulated). I urge you to go read the whole thing. To whet your appetite, I am posting part of their article below:

. . .Modern capitalism functions as a productivity funnel, taking the 2% annual productivity gains of the economy as a whole and concentrating it, so that labor gets none of it, with capital multiplying that 2% by factors of 5, or 10 or more to generate 10%, 20% or even greater returns to the owners. The added-value of economic activity is created by all the factors working together, including labor, but capital has rigged the rules of the game so as to claim it all for itself. Labor is treated as nothing more than another commodity, like bushels of wheat or barrels of oil. Capital flies around the globe at the speed of light, searching out the cheapest labor markets, and exiting just as quickly, while labor, real human beings, are pretty much tethered to their physical homes, bodies, skills and education. Union bashing and busting is all about making certain that your labor is never treated as anything more than a line item on an income statement that can be bought, sold and traded at will on the open market. In the modern capitalist economy, labor can never be permitted to be seen as “human” in any way. As has been pointed out by others, capitalists actually like the idea of an economy based on the game “Monopoly”, where it’s winner-take-all for the hotel property/capital owners. Except of course that, for real humans, it’s not a game.

The typical approach by the Left in addressing this demand side of the equation has been redistribution, primarily through tax policy –progressive income, wealth and inheritance taxes, to be redeployed into the economy either as social infrastructure (roads, schools, hospitals) or safety net spending (Social Security, unemployment insurance, and Medicare). All-in-all, this is not a bad strategy. When the top 20% controls 65% of the income and 85% of the wealth, there are not a lot of other options. In fact, I would argue that under current conditions, it remains the best strategy, as most every supply-oriented approach tends to kill the golden goose through unintended consequences that strangle capital formation and deployment. Capital, of course, recognizes both its natural advantage as the scarcest of the production factors, and the limited arsenal that the public can employ, and so has been reflexively trained to yell “Class War” whenever the subject is broached, hiding behind the hypocrisy that it was they themselves who first declared war by rigging the rules and denying anyone but capital shareholders from having a say in the distribution of the value created by the WHOLE business enterprise (which, to remind them once again, includes labor). . .

Short of throwing capitalism out the window completely, the prescription would seem to be to get out of the way of capital formation (health, environmental and safety regulations excepted), use progressive taxation liberally on the demand side, along with giving labor a seat at the management table, to even the playing field, and promote stability by holding growth in check with restrictive monetary policy and social safety nets – democratically managed capitalism. For the record, capital gains taxes are NOT part of the supply side, capital gains are the RESULT of productive capital – there is no need for unearned income to be taxed at half the rate of labor. The Capital Class will of course scream bloody murder and threaten to take their capital elsewhere, and that is part of the trade-off to be considered. However, look at what’s happening today – the lowest tax rates in generations and the jobs are still going to low-wage countries – so what more have we got to lose? Capital cares first and foremost about its protection, and nowhere else on the planet is capital better protected than in the U.S. Getting taxed at 35% or 50% on your billionth dollar is a good problem to have – at least you made a dollar and you still have your initial capital intact. And if those tax dollars are being reinvested in the economy as public infrastructure and education available for later productive use by capital, the U.S. will always remain a good, if not the best, option.

What Was Said

noreply@blogger.com (Ted McLaughlin) — Fri, 27 Jan 2012 06:01:00 +0000

Political Cartoon is by David Fitzsimmons in the Arizona Daily Star.

Committee To Re-Elect

noreply@blogger.com (Ted McLaughlin) — Thu, 26 Jan 2012 06:07:00 +0000

Found at the blog of Yellowdog Granny.

Can Hispanics Save Romney In Florida ?

noreply@blogger.com (Ted McLaughlin) — Thu, 26 Jan 2012 06:06:00 +0000

It's no secret that since his win in South Carolina, Newt Gingrich has experienced a surge of support -- both in Florida, the next state to vote, and nationwide. All of the polls done since the South Carolina primary show Gingrich is either now leading in Florida or has significantly closed the gap between himself and Romney. A good example of this is the Florida Chamber of Commerce poll that shows Romney and Gingrich dead even at 33% each (with Santorum at 10% and Paul at 6%).

The question of the hour is whether Romney can can on and win the very important Florida primary -- especially in light of the renewed vigor of the anti-Romney forces (teabaggers and evangelicals)? The answer is maybe. There are two things that probably work in Romney's favor. First is the large numbers of early voters in the state. Estimates are that as much as 30% of the Florida primary vote will be made up of early voters -- and most of those voted before the Romney fall in the polls began (when he was still viewed as the "inevitable" winner).

The other factor favoring Romney is the Hispanic vote. In most other states the Hispanic vote in a Republican primary would be negligible, but Florida is different -- mainly because of the large number of Cubans living there (many of whom vote Republican). It is estimated that 10% of the Republican primary voters will be Hispanic. And a UNIVISION/ABC NEWS POLL shows that while Gingrich may be surging among non-Hispanic whites, he is not making significant inroads among Hispanics in Florida.

Florida is a closed primary, which means that only those who are registered Republicans will be able to vote in the Republican primary. Among registered Hispanic Republicans, Mitt Romney maintains a large lead over Newt Gingrich -- a lead of about 26 points. Currently Romney has the support of 49% of Hispanic Republicans, while Gingrich has the support of only 23%. The rest are undecided. If the undecideds all decided to vote for Gingrich, then that would negate the Hispanic vote overall, but that is unlikely to happen. It is far more likely that Romney will wind up with the lion's share of Florida's Hispanic vote.

If Romney wins in Florida on January 31st, it will largely be due to him getting large margins in both the early voting and the Hispanic community. And he will definitely need both to offset the large margins Gingrich will probably get upstate among the teabaggers and evangelicals.

But while Romney can count on Hispanics to help him in the Republican primary, the general election is a different matter. The same poll shows that among all of the state's Hispanic voters, the clear winner is President Obama (although the Cuban community will keep Romney closer than in other states). Here is the breakdown of how the general election numbers look in Florida:

Obama...............52%
Gingrich...............38%

Obama...............50%
Romney...............40%

VOTE BY HISPANIC GROUPS

Cuban
Romney...............54%
Obama...............34%

Puerto Rican
Obama...............67%
Romney...............23%

Other Hispanics
Obama...............52%
Romney...............36%

Race-Baiting

noreply@blogger.com (Ted McLaughlin) — Thu, 26 Jan 2012 06:05:00 +0000

Political Cartoon is by John Cole in the Scranton Times-Tribune.

President's Speech Gets Positive Response

noreply@blogger.com (Ted McLaughlin) — Thu, 26 Jan 2012 06:04:00 +0000

Measures	Pre-Speech	Post-Speech	Shift (Post – Pre-Speech)

Obama Job Approval: Total Approve	50	58	+8
Obama Thermometer Rating: Total Warm	50	66	+16
Has Good Plans for the Economy: Total Describes Well	36	54	+18
Creating New Jobs: Total Confident	34	52	+18
For the Middle Class: Total Describes Well	42	66	+24
Energy: Total Confident	46	68	+22
Bridging the Partisan Divide and Bringing Americans Together: Total Confident	36	56	+20
Seems to Understand the Issues That are Important to My Life: Total Describes Well	42	62	+20
Makes Me Hopeful When I Hear Him Speak: Total Describes Well	38	66	+28

The graphic above is from Democracy Corps, who did some dial testing during the president's State of the Union speech and conducted interviews both before and after the speech. The people interviewed were a bipartisan group of voters from Denver, Colorado. This group obviously had a strong reaction -- a very positive reaction -- to the president's speech.

And that's not the only company that found a positive response to the speech. Knowledge Networks conducted a poll immediately after the president's speech for CBS News. They found that 91% of the people who heard the speech approved of it, while only 9% disapproved. That's an even higher approval than they found after last year's State of the Union speech.

Before the speech, 53% of respondents said they approved of the president's plans for the economy, but after the speech that rose to 82%. The poll interviewed 500 people and has a 4 point margin of error. Here are some of the other results:

Approved of Obama's Plan for the Deficit
before speech...............45%
after speech...............80%

Approved of Obama's Plan for Afghanistan
before speech...............57%
after speech...............83%

Thought Obama's Plan Would Create Jobs
before speech...............55%
after speech...............75%

Thought Obama Would Make U.S. More Competitive in World
before speech...............55%
after speech...............75%

Approved of Obama's Health Care Law
before speech...............56%
after speech...............65%

The president gave a pretty good speech Tuesday night. I liked most of it personally -- the economic parts, not the war parts. But whatever any of us thinks, it looks like the president did himself some good with the speech. And when you compare the president's speech to the insanity being put forward by the Republican candidates wanting his job, it looks even better. The president is not perfect, but I simply don't understand how anyone could think any of the Republican candidates would be even half as good.

Back On Top

noreply@blogger.com (Ted McLaughlin) — Thu, 26 Jan 2012 06:03:00 +0000

Political Cartoon is by R.J. Matson in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch.

Freedom Of Press Dropping In The U.S.

noreply@blogger.com (Ted McLaughlin) — Thu, 26 Jan 2012 06:02:00 +0000

The United States has always prided itself on having a free press. In fact, I'd wager that most Americans think the American press is the freest in the world. I wish that was true, because one of the greatest protectors of a democracy is a free press. Unfortunately, while the press in this country is freer than that of many countries, there are also many countries that top the U.S. in this area.

One of the things that worries me is the rapid consolidation of the media outlets in this country. Too many media outlets are now owned by only a few large corporations, and those corporations are exerting more influence on what is and should be covered by the press. The only thing that somewhat mitigates this growing corporate ownership and influence over the media is the internet -- and those same corporations are now trying to get government to let them also control the internet.

But it was another growing problem that bothers the organization called Reporters Without Borders. Each year this organization ranks the countries in the world by how much press freedom they have. In this year's Press Freedom Index, they have rated the United States as having only the 47th freest press in the world (out of 179 countries). That's 27 places below the rating the United States got last year, when it was ranked as number 20.

The reason for this rather large drop is because of how authorities have treated the press as they tried to cover the Occupy Wall Street protests. Journalists have been beaten and/or arrested as they tried to cover the attempt by authorities to deny the protesters their constitutional rights. This is a shocking act by governmental authorities, but not a new one. Authorities throughout history (and around the world) have thought that threatening, beating, or jailing journalists would prevent them from covering stories the government doesn't want covered.

This usually doesn't work, especially in a democracy, but ignorant authorities keep trying it. And journalists keep on having to put up with it to get and report the news. Fortunately for us, there have always been at least a few journalists willing to put their freedom, and sometimes even their lives on the line to properly do their job. These people are heros, even in a supposedly civilized and democratic country.

I am listing below the top 51 countries with the freest press. I think you'll be surprised at some of the countries that rank better than the United States.

1. Finland
1. Norway
3. Estonia
3. Netherlands
5. Austria
6. Iceland
6. Luxembourg
8. Switzerland
9. Cape Verde
10. Canada
10. Denmark
12. Sweden
13. New Zealand
14. Czech Republic
15. Ireland
16. Cyprus
16. Jamaica
16. Germany
19. Costa Rica
20. Belgium
20. Namibia
22. Japan
22. Surinam
24. Poland
25. Mali
25. OECS
25. Slovakia
28. United Kingdom
29. Niger
30. Australia
30. Lithuania
32. Uruguay
33. Portugal
34. Tanzania
35. Papua New Guinea
36. Slovenia
37. El Salvador
38. France
39. Spain
40. Hungary
41 Ghana
42. South Africa
42. Botswana
44. South Korea
45. Comoros
45. Taiwan
47. United States
47. Argentina
47. Romania
50. Latvia
50. trinidad and Tobago

Teleprompter / Telepreempter

noreply@blogger.com (Ted McLaughlin) — Thu, 26 Jan 2012 06:01:00 +0000

Political cartoon is by Pat Bagley in the Salt Lake Tribune.

Politics Of Envy ? Class Warfare ?

noreply@blogger.com (Ted McLaughlin) — Thu, 26 Jan 2012 06:00:00 +0000

A lot has been made about Mitt Romney's huge income and pitifully small tax rate in the last few days -- and rightfully so. It is inexcusable that some making more than $20 million a year should pay a paltry 13.9% tax rate -- a smaller rate than is paid by most of the middle class. In addition, Romney pays far less than 1% in payroll taxes (to fund Social Security and Medicare) while minimum wage workers pay more than 4% of their tiny income in those same taxes.

The only real defense, if it can be called such, that Romney has offered is that those who criticize him are engaging in the "politics of envy" and "class warfare". Well, I wonder if Romney thinks Bill Gates is envious of his income? Gates believes that the rich, like Romney and himself, should pay a larger tax rate than those who are less fortunate -- not a smaller rate. This is what he told the BBC in a recent interview:

GATES: Well the United States has a huge budget deficit, so taxes are going to have to go up. And I certainly agree that they should go up more on the rich than everyone else. That’s just justice.

BBC HOST: Is that a message you think that works with other people as wealthy as yourself, or is it just a small circle of friends — yourself, Warren Buffet, a few others.

GATES: Well, I hope we can solve that deficit problem with a sense of shared sacrifice — where everybody would feel like they’re doing their part. And right now, I don’t feel like people like myself are paying as much as we should.

As for the ludicrous "class warfare" statement, I think billionaire Warren Buffett had the best answer for that silly allegation. He said:

"If this is a war, my side has the nuclear bomb."

I think that adequately sums up the situation.

GOP's Preferred Medicare Plan

noreply@blogger.com (Ted McLaughlin) — Wed, 25 Jan 2012 06:07:00 +0000

As usual with humor, this is funny because it contains a lot of truth. Republicans don't mind spending tons of money to lock up criminals (even the non-violent ones who hurt only themselves, like drug users) and care for them, but they don't want to spend a nickel to help the elderly (or children, the unemployed, the poor, etc.).

Romney Is Dropping Like A Rock

noreply@blogger.com (Ted McLaughlin) — Wed, 25 Jan 2012 06:06:00 +0000

A few weeks ago most people, including Democrats and progressives (like me), thought Mitt Romney would be the most formidable opponent the Republicans could run against President Obama. I'm not so sure about that anymore. In the last couple of weeks Romney has become the face of Wall Street greed, and Wall Street's disapproval is rivaled only by that of the current Congress. I'm starting to believe that Romney might actually be the best Republican candidate that Democrats could hope for -- because it would make it easy for them to turn it into a campaign against Wall Street.

And it looks like many Republicans may be thinking the same thing (or maybe they just despise Wall Street as much as most other Americans do), because the Romney campaign is still dropping in nationwide polls. Yesterday I posted that Romney had blown a 23 point lead in just the last week. That 23 point lead had shrunk to only a single point (Romney 29% and Gingrich 28%). Now only one more day has passed and Romney has dropped out of the lead completely. Here are the latest nationwide numbers:

GALLUP POLL
Newt Gingrich...............31%
Mitt Romney...............27%
Ron Paul...............12%
Rick Santorum...............12%
Others...............3%

And the voters in Florida, which holds the next primary on January 31st, are reacting to Romney the same way that voters in the other states are. Here is the latest poll released regarding the Florida Republican primary:

PUBLIC POLICY POLLING
Newt Gingrich...............38%
Mitt Romney...............33%
Rick Santorum...............13%
Ron Paul...............10%

Buy It

noreply@blogger.com (Ted McLaughlin) — Wed, 25 Jan 2012 06:05:00 +0000

Political Cartoon is by Patrick Chappatte in the International Herald Tribune.

This Is Not Political - It's Criminal

noreply@blogger.com (Ted McLaughlin) — Wed, 25 Jan 2012 06:04:00 +0000

The above picture has been all over the internet for the last couple of days. For those of you who may have been living in a cave and not heard about it, this is the family pet of Jake Burris (the campaign manager for Ken Aden, who is the Democratic candidate running for a U.S. House seat in Russellville, Arkansas). Mr Burris and his four children came home the other night to find the family's cat brutally killed and placed on their front porch with the word liberal scrawled on it.

Mr. Aden is running against right-wing Republican Steve Womack for the seat, and both candidates have spoken out against the vile act. Mr. Aden said:

“To kill a child’s pet is just unconscionable. As a former combat soldier, I’ve seen the best of humanity and the worst of humanity. Whoever did this is definitely part of the worst of humanity. It is one thing to engage in civil political discourse, and for Republicans and Democrats to disagree with each other, which is an expected part of the political process. Taking it to this level is beyond unacceptable. . .We suspect this is the action of a rogue individual or group of individuals who are the type of folks that stoop to the lowest common denominator instead of engaging in civil political discourse."

Mr. Womack said:

"The thought of brutalizing any animal to make a political statement, no matter what that statement is, is beyond any standard of decency. The person or people, if there was more than one, who are responsible — they definitely need to be held accountable to the fullest extent of the law. There should be no tolerance in our political discussion here in this nation for this kind of behavior.”

I am glad that both campaigns have spoken out against this kind of despicable behavior. But I think they make the same mistake that a lot of other people are making by labeling this as political discourse. It is not political discourse. It is a criminal act -- nothing more (and that would be true if "conservative" or anything else had been written on the poor animal). Here in Texas, the culprit(s) would be guilty of at a minimum MAKING A TERRORISTIC THREAT and ABUSE OF AN ANIMAL (and possibly some other crimes).

I live in one of the reddest areas of a red state (Texas Panhandle) that has more than its share of right-wingers and teabaggers. And I can assure you that no jury (even one composed of only teabaggers) is going to consider this depraved act as any sort of political discourse. They will consider it to be a serious crime and punish the offender(s) as harshly as possible. And they would be right to do so.

Political discourse is a treasured right in a democracy. Whether we are on the left or the right, we need to stop dignifying this type of behavior by calling it political discourse. It is not. It is criminal depravity.

Self-Destruction

noreply@blogger.com (Ted McLaughlin) — Wed, 25 Jan 2012 06:03:00 +0000

Political Cartoon is by Mike Luckovich in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution.