Month: September 2012

Let’s take a look at what Mitt’s charitable giving goes to, shall we?

by digby

Reuters looked into it a while back:

If the Mormon church were a business, wealthy adherents like Mitt Romney would count as its dominant revenue stream.

Its investment strategy would be viewed as risk-averse.

It would also likely attract corporate gadflies protesting a lack of transparency. They would call for less spending on real estate and more on charitable causes to improve membership growth – the Mormons’ return on investment.

Those are a few of the conclusions that can be drawn from an analysis of the church’s finances by Reuters and University of Tampa sociologist Ryan Cragun.

Relying heavily on church records in countries that require far more disclosure than the United States, Cragun and Reuters estimate that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints brings in some $7 billion annually in tithes and other donations.

It owns about $35 billion worth of temples and meeting houses around the world, and controls farms, ranches, shopping malls and other commercial ventures worth many billions more.

So Romney is giving huge sums of money to a church which runs commercial ventures and has no obligatin to pay taxes on them. Sounds perfect.

“Most of the revenue of the religion is from the U.S., and a large percentage comes from an elite cadre of wealthy donors, like Mitt Romney,” said Cragun. ” is a religion that appeals to economically successful men by rewarding their financial acuity with respect and positions of prestige within the religion.”

The church is full of successful businessmen, including chemical billionaire Jon Huntsman Sr., the father of the former presidential candidate, J.W. “Bill” Marriott Jr. and his hotel-owning family, and even entertainer Donny Osmond.
[…]
The Mormon church has no hospitals and only a handful of primary schools. Its university system is limited to widely respected Brigham Young, which has campuses in Utah, Idaho and Hawaii, and LDS Business College. Seminaries and institutes for high school students and single adults offer religious studies for hundreds of thousands.

It counts more than 55,000 in its missionary forces, primarily youths focused on converting new members but also seniors who volunteer for its non-profits, such as the Polynesian Cultural Center, which bills itself as Hawaii’s No. 1 tourist attraction, and for-profit businesses owned by the church.

The church has plowed resources into a multi-billion-dollar global network of for-profit enterprises: it is the largest rancher in the United States, a church official told Nebraska’s Lincoln Journal Star in 2004, with other ranches and farms in Mexico, Brazil, Argentina, Australia and Great Britain, according to financial documents reviewed by Reuters.

Ranching and farm industry sources say they are well-run operations.

It also has a small media empire, an investment fund, and is developing a mall across from its Salt Lake City headquarters, which it calls an attempt to help revitalize the city rather than to make money. These enterprises are also part of a vast nest egg for tough times. The church expects wars and natural disasters before Christ returns to earth in the Second Coming, and members are encouraged to prepare by laying in stores of food. Farms and ranches are part of the church’s own preparation.

“The church teaches its members to live within their means and put a little money aside for life’s unexpected events. As a church, we live by the same principle,” Purdy said. The rainy-day fund and operating budget rarely mix, officials say.

And what does Mitt think about this form of “charity”?

Romney himself focuses on the act of giving, not the result. As he told Fox News Sunday, “Hopefully, as people look at various individuals running for president, they’d be pleased with someone who made a promise to God and kept that promise.”

Right. That’s all that matters.

If I didn’t know better I’d have to assume that this charitable giving to a church that primarily operates highly successful commercial businesses is just another tax dodge.

.

Paul Ryan’s Eddie Haskell impression bombs at the AARP

by digby

It looks as if not all the seniors are enamored of that nice young man Paul Ryan. (And yes, you probably have to be eligible for the AARP to know who Eddie Haskell is …):

Here’s the thing. The younger seniors (and keep in mind AARP says it starts at 50) are the most engaged in politics and are particularly interested in their own ability to keep bread on the table and stay in reasonably decent health in their elder years. They follow these issues intently.

Now, some of them watch Fox News all day and think the system is about the implode and so the system must be destroyed in order to save it. But even on its best day, Fox News only reaches a couple million people and at last census count there were 40.3 million people age 65, and it’s growing every day with baby boomers, not all of whom are wingnuts. I don’t know that Ryan can count on all of them being as gullible as the 2010 mid-term electorate was.

Update: On the other hand, President Ward Cleaver comes through with some common sense:

President Barack Obama revived a 2008 campaign promise on Friday, telling the crowd at an AARP forum that he would be open to raising the level of income on which Americans pay Social Security taxes.

“You know, I do think that looking at changing the cap is an important aspect of putting Social Security on a more stable footing,” Obama said, via satellite feed. “And what I’ve said is, is that I’m willing to work with Republicans and examine all their ideas, but what I’m not going to do, as a matter of principle, is to slash benefits or privatize Social Security and suddenly turn it over to Wall Street — because we saw what could happen back in 2008 and 2009 when the stock market crashed, and we are still recovering from that.”

.

Paul Krugman’s Greatest Column (And That’s Saying A Lot)

by tristero

Yes, there are many great Krugman’s columns, but this one gets my nomination for the best ever. He’s nailed down, with damning examples, the sheer depth of the contempt modern Republicans have for everyone who has to work for a living.

Forget the 47% stat – way too generous. It’s the 99% these people despise and dismiss – and are not afraid to say so – over and over and over again. Here’s a little taste, but it will take only a few minutes to read the entire thing:

Consider the Twitter message sent out by Eric Cantor, the Republican House majority leader, on Labor Day — a holiday that specifically celebrates America’s workers. Here’s what it said, in its entirety: “Today, we celebrate those who have taken a risk, worked hard, built a business and earned their own success.” Yes, on a day set aside to honor workers, all Mr. Cantor could bring himself to do was praise their bosses.

Wow. And then Krugman demonstrates this is not just one tone-deaf ghost-writer working for a hack. This rhetorical garbage goes right up to the top of the ticket:

Lest you think that this was just a personal slip, consider Mr. Romney’s acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention. What did he have to say about American workers? Actually, nothing: the words “worker” or “workers” never passed his lips.  

Wow. And there’s more, much more because Krugman, unlike Mr. Kristof, has no compunction about connecting the dots. I don’t want to spoil it for you!

Democrats would be crazy not to run with this (I know, I know…)

In any event, you can bet your sweet bippy that some Republican stratergy-ist has also read What Krugman Says and has sounded the alarum. And so, from now until November, we will be treated to the very amusing spectacle of two uber-elitists –  Romney and Ryan – struggling against all their upper-class twit prejudices to utter that word that screams dirty fingernails and grimy overalls -“worker” – and like it.

(Edited to fix a scrambled cut-and-paste in the last paragraph.)

Dispatch from the Grand Bargain trenches

by digby

There’s lots of talk about the Grand Bargain these days in the press, what with impending Armageddon, (which the congress may or may not kick down the road six months.)Here’s a story from yesterday:

A group of U.S. senators is quietly attempting to do something almost unthinkable in Washington: craft a bipartisan solution to the nation’s growing deficit in an election year.

They are looking at reviving a proposal by the leaders of President Barack Obama’s failed 2010 deficit-cutting commission to require Congress to act on a long-term plan, said Senator Kent Conrad, a North Dakota Democrat. The lawmakers want to offer a plan during the lame-duck session of Congress after the Nov. 6 election.

“The thing that has the greatest potential to succeed is, in the lame duck, a framework agreement is reached on a grand bargain to reduce deficits and debt by at least $4 trillion over 10 years,” said Conrad, the Senate Budget Committee chairman and a member of the new group of eight senators.

Today, Senator John McCain, an Arizona Republican, also embraced the debt commission leaders’ proposal. “Everybody knows what the solution is, and that’s Simpson-Bowles,” he said in an interview with Bloomberg Television’s Peter Cook, on the new program “Capitol Gains,” airing Sept. 23.

What comes next may be the reporter misunderstanding the real outlines of the negotiations, although I would not be surprised if that’s being discussed:

The U.S. faces a so-called fiscal cliff in January, when $1.2 trillion in automatic spending cuts over 10 years will start and the George W. Bush-era tax cuts will expire, unless Congress breaks its deadlock on a plan to replace it. Democrats propose letting tax cuts expire for top earners, while Republicans want spending reductions instead of more tax revenue.

Basically, that would be Democrats getting what going to happen if nobody does anything in exchange for Republicans getting cuts in vital government programs. What a deal.

Now, to be fair, I haven’t heard that before, so I’m guessing the reporter may have constructed that scenario since it’s not attributed to anyone. The Democrats haven’t been openly saying they’d be willing to exchange the expiration of the tax cuts for the rich for spending cuts. And frankly, I think that’s probably a non-starter for the Republicans. I suspect that any deal that includes tax hikes must be tax hikes that are largely illusory. (And keep in mind that no matter what, the tax hikes will be temporary while the cuts will be permanent — it’s always a good time to cut taxes, after all. It’s yer muneeee…)

The latest can kick is another “trigger”, (a trigger to replace a trigger…)

Under one alternative being considered by the group of senators, Congress would be given six months to overhaul U.S. tax law and entitlement programs such as Social Security. If lawmakers can’t agree, the deficit panel leaders’ plan would be triggered, Conrad confirmed in an interview yesterday.

It’s possible this will go nowhere. But the Pete Peterson circus is coming to town and they’ve got a great big pile of money:

An organization founded by Erskine Bowles and Al Simpson announced Tuesday that it has raised more than $25 million to launch a national campaign to encourage policy makers to pass debt legislation in the coming months.

The Campaign to Fix the Debt has collected contributions from corporate CEOs and others for a national media campaign and advertising campaign to urge lawmakers reach a solution to the debt crisis.

The organization was founded by Bowles, a Charlotte investment banker and former president of the University of North Carolina and Simpson, the former Wyoming senator, who headed a deficit commission appointed by President Barack Obama.
The Campaign to Fix the Debt is being chaired by former Sen. Judd Gregg and former Gov. Edward Rendell, a Republican and a Democrat.

And they’re getting their powerful, wealthy unlucky duckies in a row:

House Democratic Whip Steny Hoyer sought out Republican vice presidential nominee Paul Ryan on the House floor for a talk about fiscal issues late Thursday.

The two men huddled in plain view among the back benches of the Republican side of the chamber and were later joined by Rep. Jeb Hensarling, a Texas Republican who ranks fourth in House leadership.

Hoyer “congratulated Chairman Ryan on his selection as the Republicans’ Vice Presidential candidate, and told him that after the election, both parties will need to work together on a big, balanced plan to address the fiscal cliff,” Hoyer spokeswoman Katie Grant said.

No matter what happens in the November presidential and congressional elections, Ryan, Hoyer and Hensarling figure to play prominent roles in any major deal on spending and taxes.

Ryan left the campaign trail to vote on a measure designed to prevent the administration from granting states waivers from work requirements in the nation’s main welfare law.

It was Hoyer who crossed the floor from the Democratic side of the aisle to find Ryan among a throng of adoring GOP colleagues. Hoyer demonstratively shook Ryan’s hand, and a few minutes later the two found some empty space to have what appeared to be a serious discussion about the fiscal cliff.

Ryan told a well-wishing fellow Republican to hold on a minute so he could first talk to Hoyer.

“I’ve got to talk to this man first,” Ryan called out in a voice loud enough to be heard through the open doors of the chamber.

It’s impossible to know what’s going to happen. But it’s pretty clear what the political establishment wants to happen. And it’s bad news for the people.

.

I guess this is why they use her sparingly

by David Atkins

Ann Romney, showing her usual poise and grace:

And here’s some more Mitt.

These are imperious people with ugly souls.

.

Sadly, it isn’t just the rich people

by digby

Mitt Romney:

“There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. That that’s an entitlement. And the government should give it to them”

His base:

Perishing as they should


by digby

Mike Konczal has published a fun and informative history of the 47% meme, starting with the Lucky Duckies back in the beginning of the last decade. I’ve been following this pretty closely and I had no idea that it was both so coordinated and so pervasive.

But the basic concept itself goes waaaay back. You can read various iterations of tales of the “idle poor” throughout Victorian literature. (The picture in this post shows our own All American history with the theme.) But I think my favorite example has to be this one from 1957:

Just so.  “Parasites who persistently avoid either purpose or reason, perish as they should.” That’s called “unrelenting justice.”

Nobody should think a thing about the fact that the same man went on to become the most powerful Central Banker in world history for nearly two decades.  The same decades that saw the system changed dramatically to favor the 1%.  There’s nothing to see there at all. Move along citizen.

.

Defense contractors vs the parasites

by digby

Let the battle begin:

Defense advocates say the Pentagon has already paid its fair share in deficit reduction and next year’s Congress will have no choice but to focus on the biggest parts of the federal budget, including entitlements.

“Regardless of who wins, the big deal will have tax increases and spending cuts,” said one defense lobbyist, who asked not to be identified. “The ratio will just be different. With taxes playing a smaller role in a Republican plan, entitlement programs like Medicare will have to play a bigger one to protect defense.”

The defense lobbyist said it’s just too soon to tell what lawmakers might settle on as a potential alternate deal. “Any number being floated for additional defense cuts is complete conjecture,” he said. But the lobbyist did say he thought tea party lawmakers could go along with an alternative deal.

They’re content as long as money comes from somewhere else, he said. “They’re just concerned about cutting; they don’t care where it comes from.”

“It’s time to find the cuts somewhere else,” the lobbyist said. “The defense community should be more outspoken on entitlements.” That could include the politically sensitive “entitlements” included in the defense budget, including pay and benefits for troops — another reason a deal would have to come after the election and perhaps early in the tenure of a new Congress.

My sense from Democrats I speak to is that they are disengaged with this at the moment, relying on a gut belief that Barack Obama will never abandon the safety net. I don’t know where this comes from but among those who are not flat out deficit hawks who want this to happen (and there are many in the Democratic party) this starry-eyed view of White House leadership on this issue seems to be fairly pervasive.

I just saw Ruth Marcus of the Washington Post assure the MSNBC audience that there is a lot of work going on behind the scenes so there’s a good possibility that a deal will be made. It would be really great if the people were involved somehow in such momentous decisions but I guess we should be comforted by the fact that the defense industry is in there looking after out interests for us.

I think it might be a good idea to enlist the veterans on this one. It looks like they are slated to be thrown on the human sacrifice pyre along with everyone else.

Update: This is good, although I think we knew that this was the deal when Joe Biden made his “gaffe” by saying there would be no cuts in social security as part of a Grand Bargain. But 28 Senators aren’t enough.  Notably Dick Durbin didn’t sign, which is seen as a sort of proxy for the White House.

On the other hand, I think there’s a fair chance at this point that they’ll succeed in keeping SS off the chopping block in the Grand Bargain negotiating sessions.  This will be the sop to the libs.  But keep your eye on what’s left: Medicare and poor, poor Medicaid.

And don’t think they won’t come back for another bite at the big Kahuna even if it gets left out of this big deal.  There is a looming shortfall and there’s no way they aren’t going to do everything they can to use that to reduce benefits one way or the other.

.

Redistribution for me but not for thee

by David Atkins

Digby and I have been talking a lot in the last few days about the obvious fact that there are a bunch of working class white folks out there who don’t have any problem with socialism for them–just as long as it doesn’t go to those people. That’s something you’re still not supposed to say out loud in polite society, even though it’s obvious as a matter of simple historical record: FDR and his policies were wildly popular among Southern whites and similar demographics until the Civil Rights movement, at which point an abrupt political about-face began in which all such social spending was suddenly outrageous.

It doesn’t take a genius to put two and two together. It just takes an honest commentator to risk the manufactured outrage of the right-wing masses to point it out.

Still, Greg Sargent has highlighted more evidence that working-class whites don’t really have a big problem with social welfare or even “redistribution”:

So today’s report on white working class Americans from the Public Religion Research Institute is a must read. It defines them as ”non-Hispanic white Americans without a four-year college degree who hold non-salaried jobs, and make up one third (36 percent of all Americans,” and it sheds light on what all this stuff is all about.

On “dependency,” the study finds that large numbers of working class whites (46 percent) have received Social Security or disability payments over the last two years; more than a fifth have received food stamps; 19% have received unemployment.

Yet the study also finds that three quarters of working class whites believe poor people have become too dependent on government assistance. There’s obviously overlap there, which bears out what some have already pointed out — many of these voters simply won’t think Romney’s comments about the freeloading 47 percent, or about government “dependency” in general, are about them.

Of course. It’s about those other freeloaders. You know, those people. Not hard-workin’ folks like them. They just need a hand up. Those people just want a hand out, if you know what I mean.

The only question is whether progressive messaging can cut through the racism, at least for some of them. The answer seems to be yes:

But the findings on “redistribution” are also revealing. White working class voters want to soak the rich, and they agree with key aspects of Obama’s views about capitalism and inequality.

Nearly two thirds of working class whites want to hike taxes on those over $1 million. More than half say one of our biggest problems is that we “don’t give everyone an equal chance in life.” Seventy-eight percent of them blame America’s economic problems on corporations moving jobs overseas and 69 percent on Wall Street making risky decisions.

In fairness, 69 percent also blame government regulation and 64 percent blame Obama’s policies. But as Molly Ball notes, there is clearly a strong strain of economic populism and a powerful skepticism about unfettered capitalism among them.

In the short term this is correct. It’s also why “New Democrats” and neoliberalism are so deadly to the Democratic Party: they kill the only strain of politics that can both solve the real problems in this country (a preponderance of FIRE sector and plutocratic greed) and overcome the deep-seated prejudices of a large part of the American public.

In the long term, though, it’s just a waiting game. Slavery is this country’s original sin. It has affected every major development in the nation, and the ghosts of slavery are still the biggest reason we don’t have a decent healthcare, pension and safety net system. Not American exceptionalism, puritanism or the cowboy ethic, but mostly pure and simple racism. There’s also a huge dose of misogyny in there as well, but that’s not unique to the United States in the way that our peculiar relationship to race relations is.

Fortunately, younger Americans don’t view Americans of other races as significantly different from themselves. And that in turn will destroy the ethic of “redistribution for me, but not for thee” that has been the premise of most conservative politics for sixty years. Good riddance. The conservative movement is not prepared to adapt to the change, and will cling to Nixonland for the next several decades to its own eventual doom.

.

How Mitt could take the Senate

Oh my:

“My horse has more style and more class in its hoof than they do in their whole deal”

That’s Queen Ann Romney talking about Democrats.

Perhaps Mitt has a secret plan:

.