ThinkProgress Logo

Economy

Romney Flips On His Own Tax Plan, Admits He’d Give Huge Tax Break To Top 1 Percent

Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney released his latest tax reform plan today in Arizona and highlighted specifically the fact that it provided a 20-percent across-the-board cut in marginal tax rates for all Americans.

Upon unveiling the plan, Romney claimed that it would actually force the richest Americans to pay their fair share. Speaking of tax exemptions and deductions, Romney said, “For the high-income folks, we’re going to cut back on that, so that we make sure that the top 1 percent keeps paying the current share they’re paying or more.”

But when former Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA) attacked Romney at the GOP debate tonight, Romney admitted that his tax plan contained a massive tax cut for the wealthiest Americans:

SANTORUM: Governor Romney even today suggested today raising taxes on the top 1 percent, adopting the Occupy Wall Street rhetoric. I’m not going to adopt that rhetoric. I’m going to represent 100 percent of Americans. We’re not raising taxes on anyone.

ROMNEY: Number one, I said that we’re going to cut taxes on everyone across the country by 20 percent, including the top 1 percent. So that’s number one.

Watch it:

According to analysis by Center for American Progress Tax and Budget Policy Director Michael Linden, Romney’s claims that his plan would raise taxes on the rich was false. His later claims, that it would provide a tax break to the rich, are indeed true.

Romney’s plan to give a 20-percent tax cut, lowering rates for the wealthiest Americans from 35 percent to 28 percent, and repeal the alternative minimum tax would, as Romney admitted tonight, provide a huge tax break to the richest Americans, at a cost four times higher than the Bush tax cuts. “The enormity of these tax cuts is mind-boggling,” Linden said. “Even more unbelievable is how skewed they are to those the very top of the income ladder.”

Climate Progress

Washington Post Embraces False Balance in Flawed Piece on Heartland Affair

NY Times Andrew Revkin Walks Back Some of His “Overstated” Phrases About Peter Gleick — Or Does He?

http://games.gearlive.com/blogimages/head_asplode.jpg

The media loves he-said, she-said stories. Those have the most narrative drama and require the least amount of actual judgment on the part of reporters or editors. Just relate the core facts and then slap some opposing quotes and you are done!

And so we have the Washington Post‘s story on the Heartland affair, “Climate scientist admits duping skeptic group to obtain documents.”

Of course the piece had to quote Heartland Institute President Joseph L. Bast. But recall that several leading climate scientists slammed Heartland last week for spreading misinformation” and “personally attacking climate scientists to further its goals.” Bast himself told Climate Progress last year, the “ecological impact” of mining and burning fossil fuels is “not negative”!  And remember his 2006 quote on second-hand smoking that “no victim of cancer, heart disease, etc. can ‘prove’ his or her cancer or heart disease was caused by exposure to secondhand smoke.”

Surely one representative of the misinformers is more than enough in any serious news article on climate. But no, the WashPost actually quotes the long-debunked Richard Lindzen to close its piece — please, put your head vises on for this one:

Richard Lindzen, an atmospheric scientist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology who has questioned whether climate change will cause effects as severe as some predict, said he has been struck by “the viciousness” of his opponents. But Lindzen feels obligated to keep questioning what Gleick and others say about climate change impact “because they’re lies, it’s that simple. What would you do if people were truly misrepresenting things, and it has consequences for society?”

The WashPost quotes Lindzen attacking others for telling lies and misrepresenting things?  Here are RealClimate scientists debunking a “series of strawman arguments, red-herrings and out and out errors” by Lindzen. Then we have climatologist Kevin Trenberth explaining that the flaws in Lindzen-Choi paper “have all the appearance of the authors having contrived to get the answer they got”.  Here is The Atlantic‘s Marc Ambinder debunking Lindzen, “Global warming denialists have been re-discredited”

How could the Washington Post run those head-exploding quotes from Lindzen?

But they are sober stuff compared to Lindzen’s crocodile tears about how he’s been “struck by ‘the viciousness’ of his opponents?” Last year, he smeared his one-time close friend climatologist Kerry Emanuel:

Read more

Politics

CHART: The 19 Super PAC Donors Who Have Poured $47 Million Into The GOP Race

Sheldon Adelson

Sheldon Adelson

Once again this week, independent-expenditure-only “Super PACs” disclosed their donors for the month of January 2012. A ThinkProgress analysis of these new filings and previously available data reveals that 19 wealthy donors have already given a million dollars or more each, combining to funnel $46.75 million to Republican-allied Super PACs so far this cycle.

It comes as little surprise that this list is dominated by financial sector investors (8), energy and chemical producers (4), and real estate developers (3). All are white. Only one, the wife of casino tycoon Sheldon Edelson, is female. The Obama administration has backed financial sector consumer protections and environmental regulations unpopular with big Wall Street and big energy.

The 19 donors’ contributions accounted for about 53 percent of the $88.2 million combined receipts for those committees. Here are the 19:

Donor Donations Sector
Harold Simmons/Contran Corp. $14.1M Chemicals
Sheldon Adelson $5M Casinos and hotels
Miriam Adelson $5M Casinos and hotels
Bob Perry $3.5M Real Estate/Construction
Peter Thiel $2.6M Finance/Investment
Jon Huntsman Sr. $2.2M Chemicals
Jerry Perenchio Living Trust $2M Media
Julian Robertson $1.25M Finance/Investment
Robert B. Rowling $1.1M Energy
Edward Conard $1M Finance/Investment
Robert Mercer $1M Finance/Investment
John Paulson $1M Finance/Investment
Paul Singer $1M Finance/Investment
Foster Friess $1M Finance/Investment
Rooney Holdings Inc. $1M Real Estate/Construction
William Dore $1M Energy
Whiteco Industries $1M Real Estate/Construction
F8 LLC (Jeremy Blickenstaff) $1M Finance/Investment
Eli Publishing (Steve Lund) $1M Cosmetics

These donations went to Super PACs backing GOP hopefuls Newt Gingrich (Winning Our Future), Ron Paul (Endorse Liberty), Mitt Romney (Restore Our Future), Rick Santorum (Red, White & Blue), backing former candidates Jon Huntsman Jr. (Our Destiny), Rick Perry (Make Us Great Again), and Republican candidates in general (American Crossroads).

To equal just their Super PAC contributions, political campaigns would need to collect more than 18,000 checks for $5,000 — the individual limit. Republican strategist Christopher LaCivita told the New York Times that these super donors are “serious business tycoons.” And these serious business tycoons are seriously overwhelming the political system with their contributions.

Security

Romney Adviser Robert Kagan: Obama Has ‘Good Policy In Asia, Particularly In Dealing With China’

Candidate Romney (L) and adviser Kagan (R) part ways on Obama's Asia policy

The once shoe-in favorite for the GOP presidential nomination Mitt Romney has been taking a beating lately — from his own supporters and advisers. Much of the criticism centers on Romney’s policies in various parts of Asia. Just this week, Romney supporter Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) parted ways with his candidate of choice on whether to enter into talks with the Taliban, with McCain supporting the Obama administration’s position. But a much more significant gulf may be opening up between Romney and his camp on China, particularly about his strident criticisms of Obama’s “pivot.”

Last week, Romney wrote a Wall Street Journal opinion piece blasting Obama’s Asia policy, particularly on China (albeit while misrepresenting said Obama policy). That afternoon on MSNBC, former Utah governor Jon Huntsman, who endorsed Romney after dropping his own presidential bid, said Romney’s China policies were “wrongheaded” and that he “would disagree with what some of what Governor Romney said.”

Now, a top Romney foreign policy adviser — not merely a supporter — has come out and praised Obama’s Asia policy, particularly his work on China. Appearing on the Colbert Report to promote his book, neoconservative Brookings scholar Robert Kagan, an Iraq hawk who advises the Romney campaign, said Obama “has a good policy in Asia, particularly in dealing with China”:

COLBERT: How can you advise Romney and like anything the President does?

KAGAN: I think that when the president does the right thing, it doesn’t matter what party you’re in, you should be supportive.

COLBERT: Killing bin laden doesn’t count. Killing Awlaki doesn’t count. Killing Qaddafi doesn’t count. Supporting the Arab Spring doesn’t count. So what else has he done?

KAGAN: Well, I think he’s done some things wrong. I think he has a good policy in Asia, particularly in dealing with China. I think he’s strengthened our position in Asia with our allies. On some issues I think he’s been a lot weaker.

Watch the video, starting at the four-minute mark:


The Colbert Report Mon – Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
Robert Kagan
www.colbertnation.com
Colbert Report Full Episodes Political Humor & Satire Blog Video Archive

Kagan’s assessment that Obama has “strengthened our position in Asia with our allies” flies in the face of what Romney said in his Wall Street Journal piece. The GOP candidate wrote:

[Obama] has only encouraged Chinese assertiveness and made our allies question our staying power in East Asia… The supposed pivot has been oversold and carries with it an unintended consequence: It has left our allies with the worrying impression that we left the region and might do so again.

But maybe no one should be surprised that Kagan is a fan of some Obama policies. After all, the feeling seems to be mutual. Last month, Foreign Policy’s Josh Rogin and the Washington Post’s Ezra Klein wrote that Obama spoke effusively about Kagan’s essay in the New Republic (also here) about “the myth of American decline.”

NEWS FLASH

Sacha Baron Cohen Has Been Banned from the Oscars | In an act of sublime self-seriousness, the Academy has banned comedian Sacha Baron Cohen from the Academy Awards this weekend for fear that he’ll show up as the outrageous authoritarian ruler he’s playing in his upcoming movie The Dictator. It does seem like a bit of an obnoxious publicity stunt for Baron Cohen, and a sign of how he views his very good work as the disabled and embittered train station master in Martin Scorcese’s Hugo, which is up for a slew of awards. But the Academy comes across as awfully over-sensitive about what is, at its core, a deeply silly and self-celebratory promotional event for its products. Or maybe The Dictator just cuts a little close for the many Hollywood celebrities who have taken huge payments to perform for authoritarian leaders, a practice that became awfully uncomfortable last year during the Arab Spring—the movie show’s Baron Cohen’s character paying to sleep with starlets including Megan Fox.

Economy

Romney Was Audit Chairman At Company That Abused Tax Shelters

2012 GOP presidential hopeful Mitt Romney has already run into some trouble on the topic of tax havens. The company that he ran — Bain Capital — not only abused tax havens while he was at the helm, but Romney also saw his lucrative Bain retirement package boosted by the company’s use of offshore tax sheltering. Romney also had a Swiss bank account until 2010, which his money manager only closed because such an account would look bad politically.

Adding another twist to the tale today, Bloomberg News reported that, while Romney was the head of its audit committee in the 90s, the hotel chain Marriott abused tax shelters, prompting multiple run-ins with the IRS:

During Romney’s tenure as a Marriott director, the company repeatedly utilized complex tax-avoidance maneuvers, prompting at least two tangles with the Internal Revenue Service, records show. In 1994, while he headed the audit committee, Marriott used a tax shelter known to attorneys by its nickname: “Son of BOSS.”

A federal appeals court invalidated the maneuver in a 2009 ruling, siding with the U.S. Department of Justice, which called Marriott’s transaction and attempted tax benefits “fictitious,” “artificial,” “spectral,” an “illusion” and a “scheme.”

Bloomberg noted that “during Romney’s years on the board, Marriott’s effective tax rate dipped as low as 6.8 percent, compared with the federal corporate statutory rate of 35 percent.” Marriott’s tax dodging even drew the ire of Congress, with Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), a Romney endorser, calling the company’s use of one tax shelter an “expensive hoax” and a “scam.”

Today, Romney released an updated version of his tax plan, which, in addition to including $10.7 trillion in personal income tax cuts, would also implement a “territorial” system for corporate taxation. Citizens for Tax Justice has noted that such a system would allow companies to permanently avoid paying taxes on their offshore funds, increasing the incentive to move funds to other nations.

NEWS FLASH

Prominent Religious Leader: Obamacare Will Kill You | Richard Land, the prominent social conservative activist and Southern Baptist Convention official, told conservative radio host Lauara Ingraham today that the Affordable Care Act will kill you sooner and make your life worse in the meantime. Using the kind hyperbolic rhetoric typical of the law’s detractors, he said, “If Obamacare goes into effect, fully goes into effect, you will live a shorter life. And your children will live a shorter life. And it will be more filled with pain and suffering before you die.” Listen here:

Security

Iran Cracks Down On Satellite Dishes As U.N. Body Bans Signal Jamming

A U.N. body that regulates telecommunications ruled that Iran, among other nations, must stop jamming and interfering with international broadcasts. At the World Radiocommunications Conference, members of the U.N.’s International Telecommunications Union (ITU) voted overwhelmingly to mandate that authorities take “necessary action” to end jamming in their jurisdictions. “Jamming is a fundamental violation, not only of international regulations and norms, but of the right of people everywhere to receive and impart information,” said Richard Lobo, the director of the U.S. International Broadcasting Bureau, which beams U.S. government-sponsored channels like Voice of America’s Persian service into Iran.

Rights groups lauded the decision. Aliakbar Mousavi, a former member of Iranian parliament, praised the move in a statement released by the International Campaign for Human Rights in Iran (ICHRI):

This is the first meaningful action taken by the ITU and the UN to make legal provisions to counter censorship of satellite programs within various countries. The Iranian regime will have no more excuses to breach these regulations.

But Iran does not appear ready to give up. RFE/RL reporter Golnaz Esfandiari tweeted an article from an semi-official Iranian news agency showing Iranian authorities leaping from rooftop to rooftop in East Tehran in order to confiscate illegal satellite dishes in the name of “social security” — that is, securing “social” values. Here’s a picture of police standing over dismantled dishes:

The ITU ruling comes after Human Rights Watch and the Committee to Protect Journalists raised alarms about intimidation of family to employees of Britain’s state-sponsored Farsi-language news service, BBC Persian, which is also beamed into Iran against the wishes of the regime.

But the vote itself is only the start of enforcing the decision, ICHRI notes. In a December Wall Street Journal opinion piece, ICHRI spokesman Hadi Ghaemi and Shirin Ebadi, a Nobel Laureate and Iranian human rights lawyer, laid out how companies like the European group Eutelsat allow Iran to block signals for channels like BBC Persian but at the same time allow Iranian state-owned operators to use their satellites unencumbered. They wrote:

The European Union and U.S. should take immediate and decisive action requiring that these satellite companies end their cooperation with Iranian censors. … Without pressure on these companies from both sides of Atlantic, the people of Iran will remain cut off from the outside world.

In today’s ICHRI statement, Ghaemi said: “The ITU has now made Iran’s legal obligations perfectly clear. But the international community, including telecommunications corporations like Eutelsat, needs to sustain its efforts to make sure Iran stops jamming satellite broadcasts.”

Jamming satellites, though, are by no means the only way Iran controls the flow of information. This month, journalists and others reported that Iran increasingly curtailed internet access ahead of next month’s parliamentary elections — in addition to cracking down on journalists themselves.

Climate Progress

Bought By Big Oil, House GOP Vote Against Keeping Keystone XL Oil In America

When the House of Representatives voted on a transportation bill, H.R. 3408, that expands oil drilling into long-protected areas and forces construction of the Keystone XL pipeline, Republican lawmakers proved their complete allegiance is to Big Oil. Although Republicans like House Speaker John Boehner have parroted the myth that the pipeline would “lower gas prices” and “reduce our dependence on hostile, unstable sources of energy,” their actions show that helping American families is only an empty promise.

Rep. Ed Markey (D-MA) offered an amendment to the bill during the Feb. 15 vote, giving the House a chance to “ensure that if the Keystone XL pipeline is built, the oil that it transports to the Gulf of Mexico and the fuels made from that oil remain in this country to benefit Americans.” But the amendment failed 173-254.

Not surprisingly, the 254 members who voted against the amendment have collected seven times more total campaign cash from oil and gas interests. The 254 members (230 Republicans) took in $37.3 million in career campaign contributions from oil and gas companies and executives.

On average, each member who voted against banning exports collected $146,808 from the oil and gas industry. This is contrasted with the $5.2 million total for the 173 in favor (9 Republicans) of the export ban – or an average of $29,951. In other words, legislators who want to export refined gasoline and diesel from oil sands received five times more oil money than the legislators who want to keep these fuels here.

254 votes to reject amendment (230 Republicans) 173 votes for amendment
(9 Republicans)
Total oil & gas money in career contributions $37,289,233 $146,808
Average oil & gas money per vote $5,181,599 $29,951

* Data from the Center for Responsive Politics at OpenSecrets.org

The vote shows that House Republicans will not even support their own spin about the supposed benefits of increasing U.S. oil and gasoline supplies from the Keystone XL pipeline. In fact, the pipeline does nothing to impact production and Time magazine concurred that “Keystone would have little immediate [price] effect, especially since there’s already sufficient pipeline infrastructure in place for the next few years.” At best, gasoline prices in the Gulf Coast region would be only one and three-quarter cents lower per gallon, while prices would increase in the Midwest because the current oil glut keeps prices there lower.

Although the evidence shows the pipeline won’t help Americans, Republicans continue to fight to boost Big Oil’s profits at the same time the industry raked in record-breaking profits of $137 billion in 2011.

Older

Switch to Mobile
ThinkProgress Signup Overlay Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress

Sign Up