What Does Mitt Romney Believe In? Obviously Not American Values, But Whatever Lie Will Make Him President

What Does Mitt Romney Believe In? Obviously Not American Values, But Whatever Lie Will Make Him President

I’ve been struck by the baldness of Romney’s repetitive lies about Obama — that Obama ended the work requirement under welfare, for example, or that Obama’s Affordable Care Act cuts $716 billion from Medicare benefits.

The mainstream media along with a half-dozen independent fact-checking organizations and sites have called Romney on these whoppers, but to no avail. He keeps making these assertions.

Every campaign is guilty of exaggerations, embellishments, distortions, and half-truths. But this is another thing altogether. I’ve been directly involved in seven presidential campaigns, and I don’t recall a presidential candidate lying with such audacity, over and over again. Why does he do it, and how can he get away with it?

The obvious answer is such lies are effective. Polls show voters are starting to believe them, especially in swing states where they’re being repeated constantly in media spots financed by Romney’s super PAC or ancillary PACs and so-called “social welfare” organizations (political fronts disguised as charities, such as Karl Rove and the Koch brothers have set up).

Romney’s lying machine is extraordinarily well financed. By August, according to Jane Mayer in her recent New Yorker article, at least 33 billionaires had each donated a quarter of a million dollars or more to groups aiming to defeat Obama – with most of it flooding into attack ads in swing states.

In early August, “Americans for Prosperity,” one of the nonprofit front groups masquerading as a charity, and founded in part by billionaire right-wingers Charles and David Koch, bought some $27 million in ad time on spots now airing in eleven swing states.

So Romney’s lying machine is working.

But what does all this tell us about the man who is running this lying machine? (Or if Romney’s not running it, what does it tell us about a man who would select the people who are?)

We knew he was a cypher — that he’ll say and do whatever is expedient, change positions like a chameleon, eschew any core principles.

Yet resorting to outright lies — and organizing a presidential campaign around a series of lies — reveals a whole new level of cynicism, a profound disdain for what remains of civility in public life, and a disrespect of the democratic process.

The question is whether someone who is willing to resort to such calculated lies, and build a campaign machine around them, can be worthy of the public’s trust with the most powerful office in the world.

For decades conservative have claimed they are the party of values. America - some of us were - should have asked what kind of values. Romney and Paul Ryan seem to have nothing but contempt for anything resembling an honest campaign. No matter how many times the lies in Romney ads are shown to be mendacious lies, he and his billionaire buddies running pro Romney PACS, just repeat the lies over and over. So a Romney presidency would be based on a foundation of moral corruption from day one.

Who Built That? Fox Hypes Romney Op-Ed That Touts Businesses Receiving Government Money

Conservatives are trying to sell Americans the bizarre notion that we're moving towards socialism. Anyone who has studied poiltical science and economics can tell you that this is not what socialism looks like,

Corporate Profits Rebound But Household Income Falls In Wake Of Great Recession

Morally Corrupt Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan Spread $500 Billion Medicare Lie

Morally Corrupt Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan Spread $500 Billion Medicare Lie

Just one day after President Obama declared that the Republican budget proposed by Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) would “ultimately end Medicare as we know it,” his likely Republican opponent appeared at the Newspaper Association of America and threw the accusation right back at him. Obama, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney said, “has taken a series of steps that end Medicare as we know it” and “is the only President to ever cut $500 billion from Medicare”:

    ROMNEY: I’d be willing to consider the President’s plan, but he doesn’t have one. That’s right: In over three years, he has failed to enact or even propose a serious plan to solve our entitlement crisis.

    Instead, he has taken a series of steps that end Medicare as we know it. He is the only President to ever cut $500 billion from Medicare. And, as a result, more than half of doctors say they will cut back on treating seniors. He is destroying the Medicare Advantage program, eliminating the coverage that millions of seniors depend on and reducing choice by two-thirds.

    To control Medicare cost, he has created an unelected, unaccountable panel with the power to prevent Medicare from providing certain treatments. The result will be fewer treatments and services available to patients in need, and nowhere else to turn.


Romney rarely lets the facts get in the way of his rhetoric, but these oft-repeated accusations ring particularly hallow — and are hardly rare. The savings achieved in Medicare through the Affordable Care Act will help stabilize Medicare by eliminating overpayments to private insurers and slowly phasing in payment adjustments that encourage greater efficiency. As a result, the law extends the life of the Medicare trust fund by eight years and allows seniors to retain all of their guaranteed Medicare benefits. Medicare beneficiaries are already paying less for prescription drug coverage and receiving preventive care as a result of the law, while enrollment in Medicare Advantage has increased and premiums have fallen. The law, in other words, does exactly the opposite of Romney’s claim: it expands Medicare “as we know it.”

That doesn’t mean that it solves all of our health care cost problems. It doesn’t and Obama has proposed accelerating some of the law’s cost-control mechanisms to further lower the growth of spending. But Romney has labeled such efforts “rationing” and is offering an alternative “premium support” scheme that transforms senior’s guaranteed Medicare benefit into a voucher and significantly reduces the government’s contribution to the program. As a result, seniors will likely pay more for their health care, while the market clout and purchasing power of traditional Medicare — which has led on delivery reform and efficiencies — will shrink. So if the question is, which candidate ends Medicare for seniors, it’s hard to see how Romney’s plan to push future retirees into private insurance doesn’t fit the bill.

Are Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan men or gutter scum. Its hard to tell by how they display their values. Romney has recently said he is running on his Medicare plan and not Ryan's. Guess what, an analysis of the Romney plan shows that he would give seniors the shaft as well, Romney Budget Proposals Would Require Massive Cuts in Medicare, Medicaid, and Other Programs

Will Media Find Their Way to Discover Just How Radical Paul Ryan Is?

By contrast, Representative Ryan has an extreme right-wing agenda that predates both the Great Society and the New Deal. He has put forward plans that would cut and privatize both Social Security and Medicare. He has also called for essentially zeroing out most categories of federal spending.

While Ryan supports current levels of military spending, the Congressional Budget Office's (CBO) analysis of his budget shows that there will be essentially nothing left for anything else by 2040. The CBO analysis of the Ryan budget (prepared under his direction) shows that spending on all items other than health care and Social Security would fall to 4.75 percent of GDP by 2040 and to 3.75 percent of GDP by 2050.

The military budget currently is more than 4.0 percent of GDP. In the post-World War II era it has never been less than 3.0 percent. This means that Ryan's budget would leave nothing for running the State Department, the Park Service, the Food and Drug Administration, the Justice Department, the National Institutes of Health and the other areas that comprise the federal government as it now exists.

The government plays a major role in financing drug and medical research. Ryan, true to his dog eat dog roots would rather people die than benefit from the positive role government can play is an advanced economy.

Anti-American Conservative Myth of the Week - Corporate Taxes Are Too High

Anti-American Conservative Myth of the Week - Corporate Taxes Are Too High

Republicans have been kvetching today about the fact that, as of Sunday, the U.S. will have the highest statutory corporate tax rate in the world following a scheduled cut in Japan’s corporate tax. “The United States is a world leader in countless ways. ‘World’s Highest Taxes’ is a title we should give up as soon as possible,” wrote Sen. John Barrasso (R-WY) in a Fox News op-ed.

“This isn’t an April Fool’s Day joke; as of April 1, the United States of America will have reached the inauspicious position of having the highest corporate tax rate in the developed world,” said Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) in a statement “I want America to be number one in many things, but having the highest corporate tax rate is definitely not one of them.”

This is constant refrain from Republicans, who then blame the supposedly high U.S. corporate tax rate for discouraging job creation. But as we’ve noted time and time again, while the U.S. has a high statutory corporate tax rate (meaning the rate on paper), U.S. corporations actually pay incredibly low taxes due to the ever-proliferating loopholes, credits, and deductions in the tax code and the use of overseas tax havens.

U.S. corporate taxes that were actually paid (the effective rate) fell to a 40 year low of 12.1 percent in fiscal year 2011, despite corporate profits rebounding to their pre-Great Recession heights. The U.S. both taxes its corporations less and raises less in revenue from corporate taxes than its foreign competitors:

Politico’s Ben White also pointed out that Japan has a value added tax, so it isn’t actually true that the U.S. will have the highest corporate tax rate on Sunday. As billionaire investor Warren Buffett has said, “it is a myth” that U.S. corporate taxes are high. “Corporate taxes are not strangling American competitiveness,” Buffett added.

Of course, it is theoretically possible to lower the U.S. corporate income tax rate while simultaneously raising revenue to help reduce the federal deficit by closing loopholes and cracking down on tax havens. But Republicans have absolutely no interest in that.

Those who think everyone across the political spectrum just needs to sit down and have a civil discussion and we'll work out our differences, think again. Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah has made a career out of lying to the American public. he has time and again voted against the best interests of the American people. He hates having a democratic republic and envisions, as all conservatives do, an authoritarian state run by the right-wing elite. Hatch is a typical conservative. he cannot win any debates that require truthfulness and honor, because he has nothing but contempt for those virtues.

A robot makes robocalls, The deeply immoral charlatan Rick Santorum  Records Robocall Supporting Dictator Want-to-be ScottWalker In Wisconsin Recall

Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) Dreams of Being Communist Leader Stalin With One Man Holding American Justice Hostage

Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) Dreams of Being Communist Leader Stalin With One Man Holding American Justice Hostage

Earlier this year, President Obama nominated Arvo Mikkanen, who would become the only sitting Native American federal judge in the country if he is confirmed, to a federal court in Oklahoma. Almost immediately, Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) placed Mikkanen on double-secret probation — vowing to block Mikkanen’s nomination, but refusing to tell anyone why.

Just six months later, Coburn is back to his same obstructionist tricks:

    Sen. Tom Coburn shot down the impending nomination of the dean of the University of Tulsa law school for the vacant seat on the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, according to Oklahoma attorneys who said Coburn was concerned about Janet Levit’s background in international law. [...]

    Levit is a Yale Law School graduate with a distinguished resume that includes serving as a clerk for the former chief judge of the 10th circuit court and arguing cases before the court. She has been dean of the University of Tulsa College of Law since 2008.

    Levit’s academic specialty is international law, and she is a member of the American Society of International Law.

Coburn is one of the leading proponents of a paranoid fantasy that claims that activist judges are on the cusp of replacing American law with some kind of international legal new world order, but his decision to block Levit is bizarre even by Coburn’s standards. Apparently, merely knowing something about international law disqualifies you from service on the federal bench.

Coburn’s veto over judicial nominees within his state stems from a process known as “blue slipping” that effectively enables home-state senators to block nominees within their state that they disapprove of — although this rule somehow doesn’t apply when there is a conservative president. And it is unlikely that any nominee will survive Coburn’s effective veto given his deeply radical views of the Constitution. Coburn believes that Medicare, Medicaid, and education programs such as Pell Grants, federal student loans and Title I are all unconstitutional.

In other words, this is just one more example of how the Senate’s broken rules are failing the country. It makes no sense whatsoever to give a single senator with radical and idiosyncratic views the ability to prevent any new judges from being confirmed within his state.

Whether it is communism or fascism, authoritarianism has come to America dressed up as a Republican. Only history's worse despots think that one man can bring the entire judicial system to a near stand-still. Congratulations to Coburn and his fellow wacko conservatives for using the rules of democracy to push democracy another step closer to destruction.

UnAmerican Fox News Told America The Debt Ceiling Did Not Matter

UnAmerican Fox News Told America The Debt Ceiling Did Not Matter

During the debt ceiling debate, Fox has relentlessly pushed economic policies and positions that experts have said would be harmful to the economy, including downplaying default concerns, openly advocating for default and a credit downgrade, and actively lobbying for a balanced budget amendment.

Fox Figures Consistently Dismissed Or Downplayed Concerns Over Government Default

Hannity: Democrats' "Doomsday Rhetoric Would Have You Believe" That If The Ceiling Deadline Passes, The "Economy Would Crumble." On the July 11 edition of his Fox News show, Sean Hannity said: "As the deficit reduction talks continue in Washington, Democrats have been ramping up their efforts to scare the American people into supporting this deal. Now, the left's doomsday rhetoric would have you believe that if Congress does not vote to raise the debt limit by August the 2nd, the American economy would crumble." [Fox News, Hannity, 7/11/11, via Media Matters]

Dobbs Calls Debt Ceiling Deadline A "False Date" And "Pure Fiction." On his July 11 Fox Business show, host Lou Dobbs called the August 2 deadline for raising the debt limit a "false date" and "pure fiction." Dobbs made his comments in response to J. Dennis Hastert, former Republican speaker of the House, who said that "the federal government can decide what it's going to pay, when, and where." [Fox Business, Lou Dobbs Tonight, 7/11/11, via Media Matters]

Carlson: "Some Republicans" Are Asking Whether Debt Ceiling Deadline Is A "Democratic Ploy." On the July 12 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends, co-host Gretchen Carlson claimed that "some Republicans are saying that August 2 deadline, as I alluded to at the top of the show -- is that a Democratic ploy, or is that a hard and fast date now? Remember, back in April that was the first deadline date, and everyone kind of pooh-poohed it, and before you knew it, in the middle of that horrible earthquake tsunami in Japan, the Treasury secretary moved it." [Fox News, Fox & Friends, 7/12/11, via Media Matters]

Moore: "The Biggest Lie In This Whole Debate ... Has Been That The United States Is Going To Default On Its Debt." On the July 18 edition of Fox News' America's Newsroom, Fox News contributor Steve Moore claimed: "The biggest lie in this whole debate for the last six months has been that the United States is going to default on its debt, and I will tell you this point blank with 100 percent certainty: There will not be a default on U.S. securities, no matter what happens." [Fox News, America's Newsroom, 7/18/11, via Media Matters]

Doocy: Obama Is Trying To "Gin ... Up" Default Crisis As If "It's The End Of The World." On the July 19 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends, co-host Steve Doocy responded to a Pew Research Center poll which claimed that 43 percent of independents say it's "not essential to meet deadline" by claiming, "It's that last number right there, the independents, that has got to horrify the White House, because they're trying to gin this up as if it's the end of the world." [Fox News, Fox & Friends, 7/19/11, via Media Matters]

Cavuto: "I Would Welcome A [Credit] Downgrade." On the July 27 edition of Fox News' Your World, host Neil Cavuto claimed: "I would welcome a [credit] downgrade. I really would. I think it would be the pain from which we have a gain." Fox News host John Stossel responded, "Maybe that would wake people up." [Fox News, Your World, 7/27/11, via Media Matters]

Morris: Offices That Would Close Without Increase In Debt Ceiling Are "Ones We Don't Much Care About." On the July 28 edition of Fox News' On the Record, Fox News contributor Dick Morris claimed that, if the debt ceiling is not raised, "some offices are going to close, but they are ones we don't much care about. I mean, who is going to go crazy because the National Labor Relations Board closes its doors, or the Federal Communications Commission or the Federal Trade Commission?" Morris later claimed that "the country is not going to fall apart" without agencies such as those. [Fox News, On the Record, 7/28/11, via Media Matters]
While Some On Fox Have Openly Advocated Against Raising The Debt Ceiling

Napolitano: "If I Were In The Congress, I Would Encourage Everybody To Vote Against Raising The Debt Ceiling." On the April 11 edition of his Fox Business show Freedom Watch, host Andrew Napolitano interviewed Rep. David Schweikert (R-AZ). During the interview, Napolitano spoke repeatedly about the debt limit and at one point said, "If I were in the Congress, I would encourage everybody to vote against raising the debt ceiling." From the show:

NAPOLITANO: You have a couple of crucial votes coming up, Congressman Schweikert ... I suggest to you, Congressman Schweikert, is one of the more crucial votes you'll have to make this year, and that's the vote on whether or not to raise the debt ceiling.

SCHWEIKERT: The debt ceiling.

NAPOLITANO: And here is where the Republicans alone -- they don't need the Democrats, they don't need Mrs. Pelosi and they don't need the Senate -- can stop the flow of red ink. Because if every Republican in the House, or a majority of the Republicans, simply says no, then the debt ceiling does not go up, and the president is forced to cover the debt service, defense, entitlements and discretionary spending just on what he collects every month. What are the chances of that happening?

SCHWEIKERT: Judge, I've got to tell you, you're speaking like I'm thinking, except there's a lot more in the details. What happens if we stand firm, and do we what's right on the debt ceiling vote, and the bond markets go nuts on us. Every point that interest rates go up on U.S. sovereign debt is close to another 100 billion dollars in debt service. And remember, the discussion is raising the debt ceiling functionally to pay the bills that the previous Congress have already spent the money on.

NAPOLITANO: Correct. Correct, correct.

SCHWEIKERT: And so where do you find the balance of convincing the world debt markets that we're taking our debt seriously, so we don't panic them, and at the same time we bend this curve in the spending? This is walking a tightrope, because if we screw up, boom, every bit of savings we've accomplished gets eaten up by higher interest rates, and if we don't do it enough, then the left keeps buying their next election by this crazy spending.

NAPOLITANO: Last question, Congressman Schweikert. And if I were in the Congress I would encourage everybody to vote against raising the debt ceiling. But you've analyzed this in a most respectful and intelligent way. What will the Republicans get from the president and the Democrats in return for voting to raise the debt ceiling that will permanently, permanently stop this red ink and this madness? [Fox Business, Freedom Watch, 4/11/11, via Media Matters]

Napolitano Has Repeatedly Spoken Against Raising The Debt Limit. Napolitano has frequently used his Fox Business show as well as guest host positions on the Fox News Channel to speak against raising the debt limit. As a guest host on the March 10 edition of Fox News' Glenn Beck, Napolitano urged Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) and Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) to vote against the debt limit. During the January 4 edition of Freedom Watch, Napolitano said, "It's an easy one for me -- the debt ceiling should not be raised." [Fox News, Glenn Beck, 3/10/11, via Media Matters; Fox Business, Freedom Watch, 1/4/11, via Media Matters]

Bolling: "I Say Let Them Default." As a guest co-host on the April 13 edition of Fox & Friends, Fox Business host Eric Bolling told Stuart Varney, "I say let them default. ... What's going to happen?" Varney replied, "Armageddon is going to happen." From Fox & Friends:

VARNEY: There's a great danger in that. As you approach this deadline, if you're even talking about default, as even a possibility, a remote possibility, you really spook the world's money people. You really spook them.

BOLLING: I say let them default.

VARNEY: Really?

BOLLING: Let them go. What's going to happen?

VARNEY: You're a brave guy.

BOLLING: What's going to happen?

VARNEY: Armageddon's going to happen.

BOLLING: How is it going to be Armageddon? Let's talk about that for a second.

VARNEY: OK. If we fail to allow ourselves to borrow any more money --

[...]

BOLLING: That's got to stop. That will force it to stop. That will guarantee --

VARNEY: So you've got an immediate $150 billion cut every month.

BOLLING: That will guarantee in order for it to come out of default, you have to stop spending. [Fox News, Fox & Friends, 4/13/11, via Media Matters]

Hannity: "I Would Not Vote To Raise The Debt Ceiling." During a panel discussion on the April 12 broadcast of his Fox News' show, Sean Hannity said, "If I was in Congress, I would not vote to raise the debt ceiling." From Hannity:

HANNITY: If I was in Congress, I would not vote to raise the debt ceiling.

FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR, DOUG SCHOEN: Right.

HANNITY: Vote for a balanced budget amendment -

SCHOEN: I would with a plan to balance the budget absolutely.

[STAN] DZIEDZIC [FMR. OLYMPIC WRESTLER]: I think it is dangerous to go down that path.

HANNITY: Why?

DZIEDZIC: Well, you have to remember that -

HANNITY: Wouldn't force him to cut?

DZIEDZIC: If that was the end result, but you may - you may force a risk premium for uncertainty on the bonds -

HANNITY: Isn't China, isn't Europe lecturing us now on capitalism and how if we don't get control of our debt -- wouldn't they see that as a sign that America may actually get it? [Fox News, Hannity, 4/12/11, accessed via Nexis]

Palin: "Hells No, I Would Not Vote To Increase That Debt Ceiling." On the April 29 edition of Fox News' Special Report, Fox News contributor Sarah Palin responded to a question about whether she would vote to increase the debt ceiling by claiming: "Hells no, I would not vote to increase that debt ceiling. Otherwise it just shows the American public we're not serious yet, we're still going to incur more debt." [Fox News, Speical Report, 4/29/11, via Media Matters]

Bolling: "We Should" Let The Debt Ceiling Expire "And See What Happens." On the July 28 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends, Bolling responded to White House press secretary Jay Carney's statement that people unconcerned with raising the debt ceiling should "buy and hold [and] see what happens" by claiming, "He was right, though. We should buy and hold and see what happens." Bolling later claimed, "That downgrade and default thing that they keep throwing out there and scaring, you know, the bejesus out of people, it won't matter." [Fox News, Fox & Friends, 7/28/11, via Media Matters]


But Economic Experts Have Agreed That Failing To Raise Debt Ceiling And Defaulting Would Have Disastrous Consequences

Zandi: "In A Post-Default World, Financial Markets Would Unravel And The U.S. And Global Economy Would Enter Another Severe Recession." In a July 15 Washington Post op-ed, Moody's economist Mark Zandi stated: "The Obama administration and Congress must raise the federal debt ceiling by Aug. 2. That's all there is to it." Zandi warned that failure to do so could create "another severe recession" in "U.S. and global econom[ies]." From The Washington Post...

Since Fox News is a mouthpiece for Anti-American far Right conservatives it serves their interests to see the country dive into an even deeper recession. That way they could blame the consequences on a Democratic president. Now that a debt ceiling bill has been passed that is all about spending cuts without raising revenue, it is Republcans who are resposnsible for the continued recession.

2011 - Republicans Vote to Increase Deficit Yet Reject Obama's Compromise Which Would Lower The Deficit

2011 - Republicans Vote to Increase Deficit Yet Reject Obama's Compromise Which Would Lower The Deficit

Increasingly, the debate in Washington about budgets and deficits is looking like little more than a kabuki dance, with each Party playing its part, and the press orchestrating the choreography to make it appear authentic. The real issues and questions America faces are being ignored, while hypocrisy and duplicity take the stage. This raises questions that are begging for answers. Here’s a few worth considering.

How have the people been convinced that debt and deficits—medium and long-term problems to be sure – have suddenly become a short-term crisis? Especially since every economist not employed by a right-wing think tank is practically screaming that austerity in the midst of a jobs crisis is a form of self-destructive economic insanity.

Why are we locked in a dance with disaster – a full-fledged economic disaster – over defaulting on our national debts? At a minimum, a default would increase interest rates on everything, acting like a giant brake on our economy, and according to the CBO adding to our national deficit. Republicans claim to be playing this dangerous game of brinksmanship because the deficit poses a dire threat to our economy, yet their policies, their tactics, and a default will increase the deficit. Can you say hypocrisy?

How can Republicans get away with cynically posturing about the debt ceiling, after nearly unanimously voting for the Ryan bill, which requires raising the debt ceiling by trillions of dollars several times over the next decades? For that matter, how in the hell can they have even a scrap of credibility on this issue when they ran up the vast majority of our debt. Oh, and while we’re at it, why were Republicans silent on the debt for decades – indeed, Cheney famously said, “Reagan proved deficits don’t matter.” Apparently, deficits aren’t a problem until a Democrat assumes the Presidency.

Why are people blithely unaware of the dire implications and extreme hypocrisy of the Ryan Budget? This compilation of plutocratic pornography doesn't balance the budget until 2063 and runs up an astounding $62 trillion in additional debt in the meantime, mostly on giveaways to the uber-rich, paid for by cuts to programs that benefit working and middle class Americans. The press reacted to this plutocratic wet dream by calling it “courageous.”

Why is a perfectly sound and popular solution to our budget crisis and our long-term debt ceiling being ignored? The People's Budget eliminates the deficit by 2021, while protecting Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and a variety of other social programs, using policies that the majority of Americans support. Yet it is being virtually ignored by the Press and both Parties, while Ryan and the gang of six’s budgets get big play. Both of these budgetary absurdities actually cut taxes in the name of balancing the budget. Huh? Look, if the goal is simply to eviscerate government, then let’s have that debate, instead of trying to achieve it through a stealth attempt in response to a faux crisis.

Finally, how can deregulation and tax cuts for the rich be posited as a solution to the recent economic catastrophe, when these were the very policies that caused it? Is the antidote for cyanide more cyanide? We’ve tried this approach three times, first in the late 1800’s, next in the 1920’s, and more recently, over last thirty years. Each time it ended in disaster. The first time resulted in the Panic of 1893 and the depression which followed it. The second caused the Great Depression of the 30’s. And our latest sojourn into rightwing madness resulted in the Great Recession. That’s three times we tried conservative, laissez-faire policies featuring deregulation, low taxes for the rich and weak governments, and three of the biggest economic collapses in our history to show for it. At what point do empirical facts trump rightwing talking points?

The answer to these questions is both sad and simple.

Republicans have been running a 30-year scam to vilify government, glorify the private sector, distract the public with wedge issues, and take over the press, while Democrats have run like sissies from any hint of confrontation.

But Republicans have only been carrying their plutocratic overlords’ water. Indeed, corporations have funded a coordinated takeover of the Republican Party, the media, and the machinery of government.

This fact, ultimately, explains the answers to the questions above.

But there’s one question remaining. What is the source of Democratic complicity in this toboggan ride to national hell? Are they as cowardly as they seem, or are they simply playing their pre-appointed role in the whole sordid scheme.

With every new pre-emptive compromise by Obama, with every weak-sister protest by Congressional Democrats – followed closely by capitulation – and with their collective silence on the People’s Budget, the answer to that question gets increasingly clearer by the day.

John Atcheson's writing has appeared in the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Baltimore Sun, the San Jose Mercury News, the Memphis Commercial Appeal, as well as in several wonk journals. He is currently at work on a fictional Trilogy that centers on climate change. Atcheson's book reviews are featured on Climateprogress.org.

By the end of G.W. Bush's last term deficits as a percentage of Gross Domestic Product wer the same as they are now. Did we see any tea nut crazies running around in 2008 saying it was the end of the world. Of course not, they still had a Republican moron for president and as long as conservatives are the ones trashing the economy and running up debt, they'll whine but wont' act like brats having a temper tantrum.

Conservatives Destroying Democracy One Step At a Time - How The Right-wing American Legislative Exchange Council is Gutting Democracy

Conservatives Destroying Democracy One Step At a Time - How The Right-wing American Legislative Exchange Council is Gutting Democracy

In the world according to ALEC (the extreme facist lite American Legislative Exchange Council), competing firms in free markets are the only real source of social efficiency and wealth. Government contributes nothing but security. Outside of this function, it should be demonized, starved or privatized. Any force in civil society, especially labor, that contests the right of business to grab all social surplus for itself, and to treat people like roadkill and the earth like a sewer, should be crushed.

This view of the world dominated the legislative sessions that began in January. GOP leaders, fresh from their blowout victory in November, pushed a consistent message—“We’re broke”; “Public sector workers are to blame”; “If we tax the rich we’ll face economic extinction”—and deployed legislative tools inspired by ALEC to enact their vision. They faced pushback, but they also made great progress—and will be back again soon.

Let’s examine what happened in three critical economic areas:

Revenue

ALEC has long sought to limit the ability of states to raise or collect taxes or fees. Before this spring, it had already succeeded in getting more than thirty to adopt such limits, often hard-wired into their constitutions or requiring supermajorities to change. Its varied model legislation to this end includes the Capital Gains Tax Elimination Act, Use Tax Elimination Act, Super Majority Act, Taxpayer Protection Act and Automatic Income Tax Rate Adjustment Act. Its model resolutions oppose such things as mandatory unitary combined reporting (the chief way states get corporations to pay any taxes at all) while supporting such things as the federal flat tax and efforts to extend the Bush tax cuts permanently. The Automatic Income Tax Rate Adjustment Act, for example, “provides for a biennial reduction in the state adjusted gross income tax rate on residents, nonresidents, and corporations if year-over-year revenue…exceeds certain amounts,” in effect ensuring no increase in state revenue, even during periods of growth, while keeping tax cuts on the table. The Taxpayer Protection Act “prohibits the revenue department of a state from basing any employee’s compensation, promotion or evaluation on collections or assessments,” otherwise known as doing their job.

This past session, ALEC members, drawing heavily from the list above, introduced 500 bills to “starve the beast.” But their greatest victory was the most obvious one. Faced with shortfalls in state revenues from the economic crisis, states almost universally and overwhelmingly chose cuts to public employment or services over progressive tax increases as a solution.

Privatization

Privatization is so central to ALEC’s agenda that it has built a fake board game, Publicopoly, on its website, where the curious can find model legislation and other resources on privatizing basically everything, from transportation (Competitive Contracting of the Department of Motor Vehicles Act) to the environment (Environmental Services Public-Private Partnership Act). Critical to ALEC’s agenda are the foundational bills that set up the rationale for privatizing government services: the Public-Private Fair Competition Act creates a committee to review “whether state agencies unfairly compete with the private sector,” and the Competitive Contracting of Public Services Act requires “make or buy” decisions to encourage privatization. The hallmark of ALEC’s model privatization legislation, the Council on Efficient Government Act, creates “a council on efficient government to leverage resources and contract with private sector vendors if those vendors can more effectively and efficiently provide goods and services and reduce the cost of government.” These councils typically include representatives from the private sector, who then decide to let their business colleagues bid for public sector work.

In the past few years, with at least three additions this session alone, legislation establishing a state Council on Efficient Government has been introduced in Virginia, Maryland, Arizona, Kansas, Oregon, Illinois and South Carolina. In each case, the concepts in the bill mirror the ALEC proposal. In some cases—South Carolina, Arizona and Illinois—the state bills read as copies of ALEC’s model legislation. Virginia’s, Oregon’s, Maryland’s and Kansas’ bills, to varying degrees, contain language directly from ALEC’s model.

Unions

The fiercest attacks this session were reserved for public sector unions, especially in the once labor-friendly Midwest states of Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin that went deep red in November. ALEC has a sweeping range of model antiunion laws, the broad aim of which is to make it harder to be a union and easier for workers not to pay the costs of collective bargaining or union political activity. The Right to Work Act eliminates employee obligation to pay the costs of collective bargaining; the Public Employee Freedom Act bars almost any action to induce it; the Public Employer Payroll Deduction Act bars automatic dues collection; the Voluntary Contribution Act bars the use of dues for political activity.

This spring, GOP governors or legislatures introduced at least 500 of these and other ALEC-inspired antilabor laws, including laws to restrict the scope of collective bargaining; to limit or eliminate “project labor agreements” and state “prevailing wage” requirements; and to pre-empt local living wage or other labor standards. Just keeping track of all the antiunion legislation was often daunting. In Michigan, the AFL-CIO was dealing with more than fifty laws aimed at its demise.

In some states, the results have been lethal. In Wisconsin, the first state to legalize public sector union bargaining, public sector unions (excluding police and firefighters) were reduced to near irrelevance. The law limits collective bargaining to wages only (no bargaining over benefits, safety or work conditions) and forbids those to be increased faster than inflation. To continue to exist, unions must annually win recertification elections with more than 50 percent of the vote of all workers in their bargaining unit—a threshold requirement that is unheard of. Ohio also passed a law limiting public sector bargaining rights (including for police and firefighters) and permitting members to opt out of paying dues.

There were limits to this stampede. “Paycheck protection,” introduced in fifteen states, passed only in Alabama and Arizona. “Right to work,” introduced in eighteen states, hasn’t advanced significantly anywhere. (Tennessee reaffirmed a pre-existing right to work, and in New Hampshire the governor’s veto is holding it back.) But damage has been done. It may be that unions and other progressive organizations, moved by the carnage, will work together and with the public to build a mass movement to reverse it. Certainly, many people are trying to do that now. Whatever their success, we can be sure that ALEC will fight them fiercely in the states, while pressing forward with its own project: the complete business domination of American public life.

There are several articles in the ALEC series. One of them is ALEC Exposed: Rigging Elections. It is not that raises or lowering taxes is always wrong. It is not that privatizing some service usually dome by public employees is always right or always wrong. ALEC believes in absolutes. Such as all services should be privatized and taxes should never be raised no matter the economic circumstances. They are one size fits all ideologues. One of the greatest Founders warned us of people like ALEC. Thomas Jefferson knew that corporations (ALEC is just a mouth piece for coporate interests) would, if left to their own devices put profits ahead of democracy,

Jefferson might not have wanted a lot of government, but he wanted enough government to assert the sovereignty of citizens over corporations. To his view, nothing was more important to the health of the republic.

In the early years of the 19th century, as banks and corporations began to flex their political muscles, he announced that: “I hope we shall crush… in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country."

Conservative Bedwetter of the Week - Rand Paul(R-KY) Who Thinks 40,000 People Are Out to Kill Him

Rand Paul Worried Legal Immigrant Students Will Attack Us

There’s nothing unusual about Republicans denouncing illegal immigration. But a GOP senator attacking immigrants who come to this country legally to work and study is something new. According to the New York Times, that’s exactly what Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) did today during a Homeland Security Committee hearing. Sen. Paul specifically went after immigrant students, who he called our “would-be attackers”:

“We have 40,000 students coming to this country from all over the world,” he said. “Are they would-be attackers?”

Speaking at a Senate Homeland Security Committee hearing on border patrol corruption, Mr. Paul on Thursday questioned whether the government was adequately screening and then keeping tabs on those who enter the country with student visas or as refugees.[...]

But while Mr. Paul said he worried about legal immigrants, he was not concerned about the potential threat from American citizens.

“We’ve done so many things to think that we’re all terrorists, that universally we have to scrutinize everybody to the Nth degree instead of doing what I just think would be good police work,” Mr. Paul said, adding that it would be less expensive and less intrusive to privacy if the country looked at “the people who did attack us and who continue to attack us, and not really U.S. citizens.”

Paul’s latest attack on immigrants is only the latest example of the so-called libertarian’s disdain for civil liberties. Paul has advocated stripping many Americans of their constitutional right to citizenship, and he once suggested that the U.S. wouldn’t even need laws if all citizens were Christians. As ThinkProgress reported, he recently called for jailing people who attend “radical political speeches.”

The senator’s selective focus on immigrants also betrays his own ignorance about the threats facing this country. At today’s hearing, Commissioner of Customs and Border Protection Alan D. Bersin cautioned Paul against dismissing the threat posed by homegrown terrorists. After all, Bersin pointed out, the man accused of trying to detonate a car bomb in Times Square last year was a U.S. citizen. Additionally, attacking refugees who flee persecution in their own countries and jump through countless legal hoops to receive asylum in the United States is a particularly baseless (not to mention heartless) concern.

One of the biggest terror threats to the USA is indeed domestic, as in home grown and raised. The second biggest terrorist attack in modern Us history was by Christian conservatives Timothy McVeigh and John Nichols. More here - Republican Rhetoric, Right-Wing Terror