The Party of Hate, Bigotry, Selfishness, Ignorance, and Greed

But it wasn't always so. Have you guessed which party?

Thomas Jefferson founded what is now the Republican Party. A very interesting debate once took place between Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson. Jefferson had argued that corporations and manufacturing would result in the concentration of too much property and power in the hands of banks and the wealthy elites.

That sounds very much like what President Obama might say today. But the Tea Party calls him a Socialist.

I once wrote about Woodrow Wilson's and Theodore Roosevelt's "Hamiltonian" and "Jeffersonian" philosophies, because these ideas had morphed into opposing political views today.

In 1912 Theodore Roosevelt, leader of the Republican Party and founder of the short-lived Progressive Party (and subscribing to the Hamiltonian philosophy) had called for a broad range of positive social welfare programs. He was the one and only (and perhaps the last) Republican president that's ever endorsed a federal government healthcare plan.

Now we have "ObamaCare", but Mitt Romney and the Republicans want to repeal it. They and the Tea Party call it "European" and "Socialist."

Ideologies have changed over the course of history and time. Neither Ronald Reagan, Theodore Roosevelt, Abraham Lincoln nor Thomas Jefferson could run as a Republican today.

Now we have a flip-flopping opportunist like Mitt Romney running for President, representing the New Republican Party of hate, bigotry, selfishness, ignorance, and greed. And they are not promoting the "kinder and gentler nation" that President George H.W. Bush had once envisioned.

Disregarding Richard Nixon and the Watergate scandal, the administration of George W. Bush may have marked that moment in time when the New Republican Party was ushered in, and after Glenn Beck and the Koch brothers stoked the new "Tea Party" in 2009...which is more like the party of the old Dixicrats in 1948.

The Republican Party Today

If taxes are already historically low, and we already have too much government debt, and the rich are paying a lower tax rate than the middle-class, would you vote for a very wealthy man to be president if he's also a man who doesn't want to pay any taxes at all, but at the same time, cut Social Security and Medicare for you and your parents?

Mitt Romney and the Republicans said that the American people are more concerned about jobs and the economy than they are about seeing Mitt's tax returns...he said it was "simple minded". But his tax returns are directly connected to the debate about the economy, debt, spending, and jobs.

Romney and the Republicans are saying how concerned they are about the national debt, about "the crushing burden that our children and grandchildren will have to bear." But as the leader of our country, and considering the great debate about tax policy, Romney's tax returns are very much at the center of the discussion.

If Mitt Romney only paid 13.9% in federal income taxes on $22 million in income he earned in one year, and we are discussing the viability and solvency of Social Security, Medicare, and defense spending, it would seem that whatever reforms we need in the tax code would be better understood if the American people knew what loopholes should be eliminated.

I find it disingenuous, gluttonous, and hypocritical for someone such as Romney to complain about government spending, as though people like he were paying the lion's share in taxes.

It's almost evil for the wealthy to accuse others of not "having enough skin in the game" when it comes to the poor paying their fair share of taxes, because the poor don't have expensive lobbyists going to Congress on their behalf to influence the tax laws.

As a percent of their total annual income, the poor and middle-class pay much more in taxes and living expenses than someone with Mitt Romney's money. And the poor and middle-class can't afford to hire tax attorneys or take advantage of the same loopholes in the tax code as Mitt Romney does.

Romney's tax returns are very much at the heart of the problem on tax reform because most of Romney's income is derived from "capital gains", and both he and his running mate, Paul Ryan, wants to eliminate the capital gains tax entirely. Mitt Romney doesn't want to put ANY skin in the game.

Every year, almost $1 trillion dollars in personal income (that the top 1% earns with capital gains) is not taxed at all for Social Security and Medicare; and it is also taxed at a lower rate (15%) than a middle-class wage earner pays for income taxes (25%).

So essentially, the super-rich Mitt Romney, after already paying less as a percentage of his income in taxes than most other people, he now wants to pay no taxes at all. And then, even when he personally isn't contributing to the government treasury, he wants to dictate to others the cuts in government spending for everyone else who IS paying into the system (and not gaming it the way the top 1% has been doing for decades).

Mitt and his wife are lying when they say they won't release any more tax return because the Democrats will only "attack" them. Why would Mitt, a leader in the Mormon church, sell his soul to lead the Party of hate, bigotry, selfishness, ignorance, and greed to be President of the United States? Because his first loyalty is to his church, not to this country. And less tax revenues for the government would equate to more revenues into the coffers of his church, and may the "gentiles" be damned.

And then there's the matter of jobs.

During Mitt Romney’s time as owner and CEO of Bain Capital, he cleverly invested in, and made enormous profits from, companies that The Washington Post describes as “pioneers in the practice of shipping work from the United States to overseas call centers and factories making computer components.”

Where pioneers have gone, settlers have followed. Today, outsourcing by the country’s largest multinational corporations has become routine. The result is a process of strategic investment that often yields high profits without generating jobs or tax revenues in the United States.

Many American companies (e.g. Apple, etc.) rely heavily on subcontractors in other countries, minimizing both their production costs (cheap labor) and their tax liabilities. They can also pollute the water and air in places like China.

Pew Research says that since the beginning of George W. Bush's administration, the middle class has shrunk in size, and has fallen backward in both income and wealth. During that time 52,000 factories fled our shores, costing the U.S. over 8 million jobs during that time.

Mitt Romney, in his stump speeches on the campaign trail, has blamed President Obama for all our low-paying jobs, even though it was his time at Bain Capital that was all about down-sizing and outsourcing jobs. (Does the pot call the kettle black?)

One of Mitt Romney's most boasted accomplishments was Staples, which is nothing but a mass of low-paying jobs. Just like Domino's Pizza. And slave labor wages are also paid at Wal-Mart and McDonalds, two of America's largest employers.

Now 50% of all Americans earn LESS than $26,363.55 a year, just above the poverty line for a family of four. These are the people that Mitt Romney says should pay more, while he eliminates his own tax liability completely -- by not taxing capital gains.

Over the years, wealthy taxpayers have found countless ways to game the system, and every time the Internal Revenue Service has moved to plug a loophole, the code has become more and more complicated.

And it doesn't help that Congress (mostly Republicans) have de-funded the IRS so much that they can't hire more tax auditors to investigate massive tax evasion.

Mitt Romney also uses foreign tax credits to game the system. Maybe Mitt Romney should renounce American citizenship and move to Singapore, as did the Facebook co-founder Eduardo Savarin) rather than run for President of the United States. That would end Mitt's obligation as a citizen to pay federal income tax.

It was estimated that the Bush tax cuts in 2001 and 2003 cost the U.S. Treasury $1.5 trillion in lost revenues. Now corporate America is sitting on a colossal $2.5 trillion in un-taxed cash in foreign banks from profits made overseas.

The CEOs are earning record multi-million-dollar salaries with stocks and stock-options and paying a very low 15% capital gains tax rate (and no Social Security or Medicare taxes at all on those capital gains. About another $1 trillion a year is lost in tax revenues here as well.).

Over a quarter century ago, in 1984, the Washington, D.C.- based Citizens for Tax Justice released its first in-depth report on how much America’s top profitable corporations were actually paying in taxes. America’s top companies, this initial study found, were paying only 14.1% of their profits in taxes, less than a third of the corporate tax rate then in effect.

Their last study shows that America’s top corporations are now getting what essentially amounts to a 50% discount off their tax bills.

The STATUTORY corporate tax rate is currently 35%, but for many companies, the EFFECTIVE tax rate is half of that. So, if the tax rate was 90%, what would it matter if the loopholes allowed them to pay a mere 18%? But still, Mitt Romney and the Republicans are asking for lower corporate taxes too.

Am I the only one who gets suspicious when everything a person proposes is something that they themselves would always personally benefit the most from? If for no other reason, this should be why no one should vote for Mitt Romney. Where is HIS "shared sacrifice" for the country?

Capital gains and corporate taxes are already historically low, but the Republicans keep saying "now is not a good time to raise taxes." So then, let me ask, when is it EVER a good time to raise taxes? Would it have been back in 2001 when Bush lowered them?

The New York Times writes that "both political parties say they agree on the absolute necessity of reforming the addled and inefficient American tax code. But that would mean eliminating much of the underbrush of credits, loopholes and expenditures (such as Romney's foreign tax credits), and then maybe reducing marginal tax rates.

Of course, the devil is in the details...and Mitt Romney always provides so few. Just about every tax expenditure has a powerful interest group behind it. That is part of the reason why neither party has gotten specific about what they would put on the chopping block, and both anticipate a drawn-out fight during the tax reform process.

And of course it's usually always the middle-class and poor making all the "shared sacrifices".

And one can't help but help wonder if Congress has personal reasons for not acting sooner on reforming the tax code for the past 90 years (when capital gains was first introduced). Almost half the House and two thirds of the Senate are millionaires themselves. The fox guarding the hen house?

And then of course, there are the banks. They control our economy and Congress (big business and our government). In 1802 Thomas Jefferson wrote, "I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around the banks will deprive the people of all property - until their children wake up homeless in the continent their fathers conquered."

Maybe Thomas Jefferson was also a prophet. What would he think about Mitt Romney?

* Use this link to fact check the statistics I quote in the video.

Mitt and Ann Romney are Full of Horse Manure!

The Romneys like "dressage" horses, such as Missouri Fox Trotters and Austrian Warmbloods. When asked what was the best present her husband ever bought her, Ann Romney responded, "The best gift was a horse. That gift is the gift that keeps on giving. Some people have lovers in every port; I have horses in every port."

Romney's financial disclosure forms show that their horses are worth between $250,000 and $500,000. It cost them about as much to care for each horse as 50% of all working Americans earn in a whole year.

Last year 50% of all U.S. workers earned less than $26,364 a year - - and the poverty level for a family of four is considered to be $22,350 a year (which is a very low government assessment). But the Republicans say that 99% of us own a refrigerator, and most of us also have a color TV, and so therefore, aren't living in poverty. Yes Ann, even most working moms who are raising five kids can own a refrigerator.

Don't get me wrong, I love horses. And I think that anyone that can afford to buy and raise one should, if they want to...so long as they pay the same tax rate as those that can't afford to buy a horse.

Mitt and Ann Romney don't think they should pay more than 15% on their income, because they're "job creators", but that everybody else should have to pay more, while having they're own tax rate either remain the same, or even made lower. Why? Do they need another horse?

It's cynical for the conservative advocacy group, the Heritage Fountain, to falsely claim that half of all Americans don't pay their fair share of federal income taxes when a married couple, who each earn only $20,000 a year while raising two children, can barely live as it is.

It's cruel, misleading, and selfish for the Republicans to parrot these false allegations and then say "they need to put more skin in the game", and then say that if you raise taxes on the rich, tax evasion will increase, bringing in less tax revenues.

And what if only one parent were working, such as a single mom earning $20,000 a year? What kind of healthcare plan could she afford for herself and children after paying for rent and food? Healthcare insurance premiums averaged $414 per month last year, so how much more skin should a real working woman put into the "game"?

It's mean and disingenuous for the GOP to falsely claim that a single mom with children is on the "government tit from the cradle to the grave", when receiving welfare benefits (TANF) when this federal program only has a four year life-time span, and is barely enough to subsist on, let alone buy a new Cadillac.

It's an out-right lie for the Republicans to falsely claim that 18 million Americans (who at one time or anther during the Great Recession, received federal extended benefits) were "gaming the system", and that immediately after their benefits expired, most all of them found jobs. Total B.S..

It's also vindictive and deceitful, and divisive for the Republicans to falsely claim that the unemployed had a higher rate of alcohol and drug use, and so therefore, need be tested - - unlike the politicians who are making these laws, who are also on the government dole. How many of them have been arrested on drug charges? How many times has Rush Limbaugh?

The Republicans use a handful of stories that are contrary to the facts, and use them as anecdotal evidence, and then rail about Obama turning this country into a welfare state - - and more like a European country. It's total B.S.

It's really just the opposite. Give everyone a job paying more than unemployment benefits and welfare and they will work. But the Republicans don't want to raise the minimum age and corporations don't want to pay a "living wage" to Americans, that's why they bust labor unions and outsource jobs overseas (or move to Southern states where wages were kept lower).

Groups like the Heritage Fountain and the Republicans falsely label these CEOs and their wealthy heirs as "job creators", and say we can't raise their taxes or they won't create jobs. But all the jobs were lost WITH the Bush tax cuts over the last ten years.

With CEOs earning multi-million-dollar annual salaries (year after year), and with over $2.5 trillion hoarded away in corporate treasuries, how can these CEOs and the Republicans claim that taxes are too high? Especially when, in truth, they are now historically low in most categories.

The GOP falsely claims that food stamps, unemployment benefits, and welfare is part of "big government" and is also at the root of our budget deficit...as though the poor were somehow taking from you to live "high on the hog", while they lounged around like lazy bums in hammocks. Total B.S.

A member of congress makes almost 9 times more than that single mom earning only $20,000 a year. Should we tax her more to pay that congressional salary, or tax members of congress more to reduce the national debt?

Does Ann Romney, who's raising five sons, work harder than a woman earning a measly $20,000 a year (or is taking in less on welfare) who is also raising five sons? Who, between these two women, needs a tax cut - - and who needs their taxes raised?

Congress has always written the tax code to benefit themselves and the very wealthy, especially since 1921 when the preferential treatment of capital gains was first introduced. The rich have enjoyed paying a disproportionately lower tax rate than the middle-class has for a very long time, and one reason why we have so much inequity in income and such a disparity in wealth.

So now, who really needs a tax cut, and who needs a tax increase? If you ask the Heritage Fountain or the Republicans, they will tell you to raise taxes on the poorest and cut taxes for the richest.

The Republicans and the Romneys claim they're "job creators", when we all know that's just plain horse manure, but that's their story, and they're stickin' to it.

It's not envy or class war...it's math. The Romneys, and everyone else in the top 1%, should pay a higher tax rate than the poor...not a lower tax rate. For them to say otherwise in un-American and greedy...and just shows they have no class at all. I guess it's true, money can't buy class.

(Below) A typical stay-at-home mom and job creator, working hard to raise five kids, and who is now working hard by campaigning to be our First Lady.

Obama Tax Plan vs. Mitt Romney's

The two tax plans are almost exact opposites...just like their political ambitions and social priorities - - just like their moral values and empathy for humanity. One tax plan takes into consideration the 99%, the other, mostly the top 1%. You decide who you are, and where you fit, then vote for whoever has your best interests at heart.

Romney wants to cut all 6 current taxbrackets by 20%...this, from a guy who hasn't signed the front of a check by creating jobs, but has instead just been signing the back of a check from his low-taxed income.

Romney claimed his tax plan would not create new deficits because he would limit tax deductions and exemptions for the wealthy saying, "For high-income folks, we are going to cut back on that so we make sure the top 1% keeps paying, paying the current share they're paying or more."

He neglects to mention that those tax deductions and exemptions do not include carried interest or capital gains, but he does mention "we're going to lower our spending" and "fix our entitlements" - - that's how his tax plan "will not create new deficits" - - by taxing the middle class and poor less (and forcing government cuts), but keeping the tax rates very low for millionaires and billionaires, for those whose primary earnings are through income such as carried interest, capital gains, dividends, trust funds (e.g. Kim Kardashian and Paris Hilton), generation-skipping inheritances, gifts, and investments in gold, silver, rare wine, and expensive art (Read: The "SWAG" Economy of the 1% and How the 1% bilks the 99%)

Romney would maintain the current tax rate of 15% on capital gains and dividends for households that earn $200,000 a year or more (the top 1%), keeping the wealthiest American's tax rates extremely low. High earning Americans who are paid through regular wages would pay a 25% rate, and the middle-class would pay 20% (Mitt Romney would still only being paying 15% on his carried interest...he's not raising or lowering his tax rates.)

Mitt Romney would lower the poorest American's tax rate only 2% (from 10 to 8 percent), but lower the top rate 7% (from 35 to 28 percent). In each way, the rich get richer as the poor get poorer because the poor will also have social programs cut in exchange for a little bit lower tax rate. Romney has said his goal is to reduce federal spending to no more than 20% of the economy by 2016, down from a current level of roughly 24%.

This has all happened before, under the Bush tax cuts, where the poor was thrown a bone when the rich enjoyed a more massive tax saving. Doesn't Mitt Romney think poor people can do simple math?

The Obama administration is proposing cutting corporate tax rates from 35 percent to 28 percent, and to 25 percent for manufacturers (just as in China), and calling for an end to dozens of subsidies and loopholes that he says offer tax breaks to companies that move jobs and profits overseas.

Manufacturers would receive incentives so that their effective tax rate could be even lower, while American multi-national corporations with overseas operations would also face an unspecified minimum tax on their foreign earnings - - which this blogger would argue, should also be 25 percent, just like in China. Then we'll see if cheap labor isn't the REAL reason why jobs go overseas.

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner said the current business tax system is bad for business and for job-creation and argued that President Barack Obama's plan to reduce corporate tax rates to 28 percent would make the tax system more globally competitive.

Obama's plan would be part of a larger effort to overhaul the U.S. tax system and it dovetails with Obama's call for raising taxes on millionaires (30% on those earning over $1 million a year for the top 1%) and maintaining current rates on individuals making $200,000 or less (the 99%).

But reducing the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 28 percent would also reduce tax revenues by about $70 billion a year, according to an estimate prepared last October by the Joint Committee on Taxation, the official scorekeeper for Congress. That means lawmakers would have to find about $70 billion a year in tax increases to keep the package from adding to the budget deficit.

In 2010, the corporate income tax raised a total of $278 billion, according to the Internal Revenue Service. That year corporate profits accounted for 14 percent of the total national income, and was the highest proportion ever recorded since 1942 when their was a need for war materials.

On corporate taxes, Mitt Romney has called for a 25 percent rate on all corporations, Newt Gingrich would cut the corporate tax rate to 12.5 percent, and Rick Santorum would exempt domestic manufacturers from any corporate tax at all and cut the top rate 50% for other businesses. Herman Cain had asked for a ridiculously low 9% corporate tax rate in his 9-9-9 plan.

On capital gains taxes, Rick Santorum would lower capital gains and dividends from 15% (which are already historically low) to 12%. Herman Cain had asked for 9%, and Newt Gingrich asked for an unbelievable ZERO taxes on capital gains (no wonder the ultra-rich are giving away millions of dollars at them for their campaigns). But all the Republicans want to make it much easier to starve government programs with reduced government spending.

White House economic adviser Gene Sperling has advocated a minimum tax on global profits. Currently many American corporations do not invest overseas profits in the United States to avoid the 35 percent tax rate. (Again, I would argue this should also be 25 percent, just like in China. Then we'll see if cheap labor is the REAL reason why jobs go overseas).

But Mitt Romney says, "Obama's plan will kill jobs. My plan will create jobs. That's the difference between the two of us." (Oh really?)

Mitt Romney earns millions of dollars every year from his "investments" and pays a lower tax rate than most middle-class Americans, but how many jobs has THAT "job creator" been creating every year for the past 10 years since he left Bain Capital -- ever since he's enjoyed the low tax rates from the Bush tax cuts on his capital gains and carried interest?

Mitt Romney hasn't hired anyone, unless of course, you count his "undocumented" and his under-paid housekeepers. The Republican's reasoning today is, if we tax Mitt Romney the same as any other middle-class taxpayer, Mitt will be forced to hire less housekeepers, cooks, valets, maids, butlers, chauffeurs, and tax attorneys.

In stark contrast, Obama's reasoning is that if we tax Mitt (and all the other millionaires and billionaires) at the same rate as middle-class taxpayers (or just a little more), we'll be able to raise tax revenues to help pay down the national debt and keep vital government services properly funded...such as our military and space programs.

With the highest capital gains tax rate, we sent a man to the moon. With the lowest capital gains tax rate, we had to cut our space shuttle program.

But Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum, and Newt Gingrich wants a tax break for these people, but they've already had a HUGE tax break for the past 10 years! (Ron Paul doesn't want to tax anyone for anything). Remember the Bush tax cuts? How many jobs did that create?

Below: See what these multi-billionaires on the Forbes 400 List can already buy with $1 billion today. And Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum, and Newt Gingrich (and Ron Paul) thinks they all need more tax breaks?!?!?

A $150 million mansion (The Spelling Manor in Los Angeles)

A $2.4 million sports car (2011 Bugatti Veyron Super Sport)

A $600 million ultra-luxury yacht (The 557-foot Eclipse)

A $60 million private jet (VistaJet RETNA), a little more than a Gulfstream G550

A $275,000 bottle of rare champagne - to celebrate your good fortune (Shipwrecked 1907 Heidsieck)

Why would one single human being ever want or need more than $1 billion in personal wealth in their entire lifetime, let alone, more tax breaks? Just so that someone else could be denied food stamps because we lacked the federal tax revenues? Bill Gates has $59 billion, and Warren Buffett has $39 billion...how about a few more crumbs for the poorest among us, would that be the Christian thing to do?

But the Republicans don't want to raise taxes on the uber-rich at all! They lamely claim it is "punishing success" and "waging class warfare", when most of us already know that it's us that is being punished, and suffering a class war that's been waged on the middle-class and poor by the Republicans for the past 40 years!

Last year 50% of all American workers earned less than $27,000 a year when the poverty line for a family of four was $22,314 -- but the Republicans think these people should "put more skin in the game"!

Loopholes such as capital gains are taxed at 15%. Carried interest, trust funds, SWAG investments (silver, wine, art, and gold), gifts and generation-skipping estates, annuities, interest (etc.) all get favorable tax rates for the very wealthy. This should ALL be taxed as "ordinary" personal income.

The top 1$ are taxed LESS than the wages you labor for, yet the top 1% is also more prone to evade income taxes too!

READ: The current U.S. tax code: Never has so much been done by so many for so few who need so little.