Has everyone lost their minds? Were enough Americans favorably impressed by Mitt Romney's "forcefulness" during the recent debate to make a 180º turn and decide he was more fun than President Obama? Was our election teetering on that tenuous a balance that things could change so dramatically?
Or is this not much more than storyline and the need for continuing uncertainty about this election? Is this the press and the pollsters, who seem to do selective data-picking relative to their polling? Selective? you know, like all Republicans vote, but a lot of Democrats don't vote because they are poor, black and employed, or some story like that?
I'm not sure about others, but I found Romney's debate demeanor quite off-putting. I know that as a Mormon he is not supposed to drink coffee, but did he fudge a bit and knock back three Red Bulls prior to the event? He came across like Newt Gingrich on steroids. Can you imagine that personality showing up at a G-20 Meeting and forcefullu lecturing the other nineteen world leaders as to what he (or more likely his handlers) think they are doing wrong? Wow, that would go over well, wouldn't it? Our allies would be peeling away from us in a hot hurry.
I heard a clip from the debate between Romney and Ted Kennedy, when Romney ran for the Senate in Massachusetts. Romney had a plan, Kennedy questioned him about the details, but Romney could not say how much his plan would cost, or what the effects would be on the budget. Kennedy, correctly, suggested that Romney was full of horsefeathers. So has anything changed? Nope, Romney now says that he will release his new tax plan on November 7th. I hope he keeps that promise, after he gets a well-deserved drubbing in the election. Anyone who has a "plan" that they can't tell the American people about, would appear to be asking our citizens to take it "on faith" that he's got a really, really good plan, honest! You just wait, we're all going to swoon over how clever and fair and progressive it all is! Wait, progressive? Ooops, that's a bit of a loaded term, isn't it? Why is it "loaded"? Because Mitt Romney does not believe in the progressive tax system. Omigod, there I've gone and let the cat out of the bag. How do I know this? Because I am part of the OTHER 47%. Who are they? They are the large group of Americans who pay a higher tax rate than Mitt Romney does, even though their income is far, far lower.
There's an explanation of all this below the fold;
So wait, if Romney makes so much more money than I (and tens of millions of others) do, how could it be that he pays far less taxes than I do? What gives?
What is important to remember is that Romney has TWO Graduate Degrees from Harvard, one a law degree and the other an MBA. Romney knows both law AND business. He has used that to help him figure out how to restructure his businesses and his income so that large parts of it can be taxed at a far, far lower rate than an average person is required to pay. Remember Warren Buffett, who has carefully explained that our current tax system has been tweaked and lobbied into a system that is REGRESSIVE in many cases? A system where Buffett pointed out that his secretary paid a far lower percentage of her income than Buffett himself did? To his great credit Buffett did two things about it;
1. He called attention to the problem
2. He called on the very wealthy to donate a large percentage of their income
As a bridge solution to the problem those are both very good steps to take. But they are not a solution to the underlying problem.
Our current tax code has been corrupted
I don't think that is going to be too much of a shock to many, but over my lifetime I have watched our tax system change from something understandable into something that most accountants can't grasp the full extent of. Only those with the simplest sources of income can safely file their own taxes at this point. That is, for a lot of reasons, a really, really bad thing. I've got nothing against accountants, but our current tax code gives every indication of being written to BE overwhelming and full of loopholes, to purposely favor the very wealthy and their armies of hard-working accountants. Why so many accountants? Because it is a lot cheaper to pay accountants than to pay taxes.
Has anyone forgotten that Mitt Romney still has a host (twenty? more?) of trusts located in the Cayman Islands? Why would he have his money parked in that small Caribbean Island? Because his funds can grow, in secret, only being exposed to the light, and US taxes, when and if Romney wishes. Has anyone noticed that Romney made far higher Charitable contributions in 2011? Why was that? His income was down from $20 million (reported) to $13 million (reported) and yet he had given more in charitable contributions than the year before. Why was that? And why did it take him so long to release his tax return, which logically was when he FILED his return. Did it take his accountants that long to count all his pennies? Nope, the answer is rather more interesting I would argue.
I think Romney actually made MORE money in 2011, since the stock market (as it usually does under Democratic Presidents) did quite well compared to 2010. It could be that Romney made more like $25 million in 2011. Or more than that. So he had made far larger charitable donations than 2010. And then the optics of his bump in income began to worry him. But he had already made the large (deductible) donations, so he had to reduce his taxable income. How could he do that, after the tax year was over? Remember, these are income reports from Trusts that are secret accounts. What they report, and when they report it, is not transparent. Funds kept in the Trust need not be reported as income, unless and until one wishes to do so.
Some might say that Romney is living a lie. Every day of his life. He would say that he is being very professional and working hard to build up assets for his family. But what he is doing is very, very different from what 99.9% of other Americans are able to do. He is gaming the system, for his personal gain. Is it legal? Experts debate the legality of it, but even if it is determined to be illegal, do you think anyone will be (ahem) jailed for such monetary shenanigans? Oh, get real. There are two sets of laws. One for the very poor and very desperate and another set of laws for the extremely wealthy and well-connected. That class of individuals was able to take advantage of a 2009 tax "amnesty" that permitted them to pay 20% to "repatriate" their secret Swiss Bank Account holdings, that they had been hiding from the IRS and not paying taxes on. You ever wonder why Romney is so adamant about not releasing his 2009 Tax Returns? There is your answer. He successfully evaded taxes for years, perhaps decades, by hiding them in numbered Swiss Accounts, until the US Government cracked the secrecy of the Swiss Accounts and set up a system of tax amnesties that was a far better offer than having the perps be prosecuted for tax evasion.
Mitt Romney is a tax evader. We don't know the exact character of his strategies, but we can be certain that he would never reveal a list of his actual assets. I disagree with Harry Reid that Romney paid no taxes, in this Reid is wide of the mark. What is far more likely is that Romney has significantly more assets than he is telling us about. $250 million? Naah, that's really chump change. Take a look at the Forbes Four Hundred list, that just came out this year. Net worths run up into the tens of Billions, not Millions, but the list is almost certainly wildly inaccurate. A lot of the wealthy aren't comfortable with others knowing how much money they are worth. So they hide it, often quite successfully. Oh, they've GOT the money, and like Mitt's Cayman Island swag, it is working hard for them to make more and more money, but all of that is happening behind secrecy barriers and multiple structures that help to obscure the assets and their actual ownership. The limit for being anointed as one of the "Forbes Four Hundred" is assets of about a Billion Dollars these days. If we had a clear idea of Romney's actual assets I would not be surprised if he made that list. But Romney has worked very hard to keep a lid on what people know about his net worth. Might not look good, you know?
So while everyone is swooning over how studly Mitt was at the debate, over his family "demanding" that he show everyone is kinder, gentler side, don't believe it. This is just the new campaign "reboot". The newer improved Mittens, with a softer, improved facade. He remains an elitist, dishonest, self-absorbed, clueless plutocrat. And Paul Ryan? Romney is his hero. I have referred to Ryan as "Mini Mitt" elsewhere, and I will say it again. Romney is what Ryan aspires to be. Oh, and Ryan's plan? He doesn't have "time" to go through all the math, presumably because explaining higher math to reporters and voters is like talking to a retarded child.
We just don't understand, do we?
Well, actually more and more of us are beginning to understand very, very well, but now we've got to fight the new improved bogus story line. Or else we will be swept back into the Bush era, a fate that might set our nation back another ten years.
Why does this matter? Aside from the impending collapse of American society? Because Romney is largely contemptuous of the "middle class". Not what HE would describe as the Middle Class, which is those earning $200,000 to $250,000 a year, but the broader category of those families earning let's say $50,000 to $250,000 a year. Why such a broad range? Well, because the cost of living varies wildly between different areas of the country. Some families might be able to squeak by just fine on $50,000 a year, in certain parts of the country, in certain situations, whereas in an urban area with high housing costs they'd be struggling badly. Romney's narrower income range suggests that he believes that anyone earning less than $200,000 is a "taker", a "victim"... and by his definition you are either a "maker" or a "taker", and if you are a taker, then you are a moocher, a deadbeat, somehow not really a loyal and honorable American. You are "other". Romney can say that he supports 100% of the American people, but if you believe that rehearsed talking point, then I have a really nice bridge in Brooklyn that I think I could get you a great deal on, because I have a friend... etc.
It is BS, pure and simple.
What you also need to understand is that if we lose our respect and our concern for our broader society, including both those of middle income and those who are struggling to survive on lower incomes, then we give up our humanity and the potential for our nation to thrive and continue to be a place of opportunity. The well-heeled "makers" of Mitt World are not the playwrights, artists, scientists, inventors and thinkers of the future, they are people who are skilled at making money sit up and bark like a trained seal. That's a great skill to have, but let's not mistake it for wisdom, except in that one specific skill set. And no, having a nice haircut does not round out one's resume, not when one really enjoys firing people.