Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney (R) has ramped up his campaign efforts in August, appearing at the Iowa State Fair and at town hall events across New Hampshire. But in his emergence from what Politico dubbed the “Mittness Protection Program,” Romney has encountered voters who aren’t thrilled about some of his policy prescriptions, including his potential support for reforming Social Security by raising the retirement age or changing the way benefits are calculated.

Romney was challenged on Social Security by fair-goers in Iowa and again in New Hampshire last week. Last night, he ran into yet another voter concerned about the program’s long-term viability. But in an effort to explain his opposition to raising the payroll tax cap and his potential support for other proposals, Romney played loose with the facts:

ROMNEY: How about the 20-year-olds? How about those under 55? And in that case the answer is, let’s talk about it. We have one of three ways we can go, mathematically. One, we can raise taxes on people that are under 55. Number two, and by the way, if we don’t change the programs at all, if we leave them exactly as they are, Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security, for those that are 20, 30, and 40, their payroll tax will have to go up. Do you know what the payroll tax is now? What is it? It’s 15.3 percent. (Interrupted) Let me finish. So the tax is 15.3 percent today. If we don’t change the programs at all, ultimately it will have to rise to 44 percent. I’m not willing to raise the tax on the American young people to that level.

Watch it:

Romney’s tax facts, put simply, are wrong. Individual incomes are only subject to the 15.3 percent tax if a worker is self-employed, otherwise the rate is half that, since employers pay half of the tax. The 15.3 percent number, meanwhile, is used to pay for Medicare Part A, Social Security, and the hospital fund. The actual rate that finances Social Security is 12.4 percent — 6.2 percent each from individuals and employers — and according to the Social Security Administration, raising that rate by 2 percent (one percent each for individuals and employers) would guarantee the program’s solvency for 75 years.

Romney has repeatedly cited the 44 percent payroll tax figure, but according to the report he is using, that rate would not take effect for more than 60 years — in 2075. Even then, the bulk of payroll tax increase would go to finance Medicare, not Social Security, the program Romney was asked about directly (despite Romney’s claim, Medicaid is not paid for by payroll tax revenues).

Though Romney’s stance may fit his and the Republicans’ tax-averse nature, it ignores the easiest way to strengthen Social Security for the foreseeable future. As another Granite Stater brought to Romney’s attention at a town hall last week, raising or eliminating the payroll tax cap would keep Social Security solvent for at least another 75 years, without cutting benefits for current or future retirees. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), in fact, announced today that he will introduce legislation to lift the tax cap when the Senate reconvenes in September.

Our guest blogger is Alon Cohen, a housing policy consultant for the Center for American Progress.

The Center for American Progress warned in April 2011 that banks’ quiet settlements with federal regulators over mortgage servicing fraud concerns could spell doom for similar state AG investigations. We noted that a federal settlement could stall state attorney general talks as banks asked for time to implement the settlement terms, risking delay and fractures in the AG coalition.

The fractures would weaken the AGs’ bargaining position and could even derail a settlement altogether. Unfortunately, we may have been right. Talks in April occurred around a rumored $20 billion fine. A month later, the number dropped to $5 billion amid news of defections.

Yesterday, Iowa AG Tom Miller removed New York AG Eric Schneiderman from the lead negotiating group, claiming that he has “actively worked to undermine” the settlement. This is only the latest in a series of high profile rifts that include AGs from Florida and Massachusetts.

At this point, don’t expect an AG settlement any time soon or with any significant monetary penalty or with serious reforms required beyond what was already in the settlements with Office of the Comptroller of Currency, Office of Thrift Supervision, and FDIC. Of course, there has been no report of any significant changes coming from those settlements either.

Last week, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) was a featured speaker at the United Steel Workers 2011 conference in Las Vegas.

Sanders focused much of his speech on the Social Security system, blasting suggestions by Democrats and Republicans alike that, for example, we should adjust the cost of living adjustment to cut Social Security payments to working class Americans or raise the retirement age. “When [Social Security] was developed, 50 percent of seniors lived in poverty. Today, poverty among seniors is too high, but that number is ten percent. Social Security has done exactly what it was designed to do!” he thundered, defending the program. Watch it:

Today, Sanders announced that he will introduce legislation that would strengthen Social Security without cutting benefits to any of its beneficiaries. Sanders’ legislation would eliminate the income cap that currently exists in the payroll tax that does not tax income above $106,800:

To keep Social Security strong for another 75 years, Sanders’ legislation would apply the same payroll tax already paid by more than nine out of 10 Americans to those with incomes over $250,000 a year. [...] Under Sanders’ legislation, Social Security benefits would be untouched. The system would be fully funded by making the wealthiest Americans pay the same payroll tax already assessed on those with incomes up to $106,800 a year.

Sanders points out that President Obama himself endorsed this idea on the campaign trail in 2008. “What we need to do is to raise the cap on the payroll tax so that wealthy individuals are paying a little bit more into the system. Right now, somebody like Warren Buffet pays a fraction of 1 percent of his income in payroll tax, whereas the majority…pays payroll tax on 100 percent of their income. I’ve said that was not fair,” said Obama during the campaign.

The Social Security system is currently fully funded until 2037. Lifting the payroll tax cap would virtually eliminate funding shortfalls the program would experience over the next 75 years.

Tea Party Rep. Chip Cravaack (R-MN) had been avoiding his constituents during the August recess, holding on private and pay-per-view meetings until a group of “granny” protesters shamed him into hosting a public town hall this week. Cravaack finally held a forum at the Duluth airport yesterday afternoon, and its clear why had avoided doing so before as some constituents confronted him for supporting cuts to Pell Grants while refusing to raise taxes on the wealthy. “Unfortunately, what I’ve seen is they’ve become more and more uncivil as time goes on,” Cravaack said. Participants remained civil, but the discourse was certainly heated at times.

Theresa O’Halleran Johnson, a recent college grad, spoke up after Cravaack suggested that Pell grants are responsible for raising tuition costs on “normal people.” “Pell grants have increased the last four years by 139 percent. Dollar for dollar, as the Pell grants increase, so does normal tuition on normal people,” Cravaack. “That’s not true!” several constituents shouted. Johnson took the mic to say, “That is completely incorrect.”

“I am this future you keep taking about — the future you keep talking about piling debt on,” Johnson continued. “And this is the future speaking, asking why you aren’t raising taxes on people who can afford it.” Johnson’s comments were met with wild applause and cheers from the crowd.

When Cravaack prepared to leave the town hall “promptly one hour after it started,” several audience members again spoke up, asking that he stay to answer more questions, since it’s unclear when or if he’ll hold another public forum in district’s main city. Watch video shot by YouTube user MimiVictoria345, and compiled by ThinkProgress:

Cravaack’s claim about Pell grants comes from analysis put out House Budget Chairman Paul Ryan (R-WI) in support of the GOP budget, which cuts funding for the education program. As ThinkProgress has noted, the study Ryan cites to support his claim actually finds the opposite, concluding, “we find little evidence” that the grants increase tuition costs.

“I thought it was poor. He spent a lot of time explaining his position. He did not allow enough people to speak,” said Kathy Hern, an unemployed worker, told a local Fox affiliate of the event.

With the constant stream of Wall Street donations flowing into his campaign coffers, it was only a matter of time before GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney called to repeal Wall Street’s number one enemy — the 2010 Dodd-Frank financial reform law. Though Congress enacted the law to provide vital consumer protections and to prevent Wall Street from spurring another financial crisis, Republicans have continually attempted to cripple the law piecemeal, either by attacking the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau or weakening derivatives regulation. But Romney decided yesterday that a repeal of the law was necessary because, in part, the law’s length is too “overwhelming”:

“The extent of regulation in the banking industry has become extraordinarily burdensome following Dodd-Frank,” Romney told a roundtable of 18 businessmen at The Common Man Restaurant.

“I’d like to repeal Dodd Frank, recognizing that some revisions make sense,” Romney said. [...]

[H]e said, the 2,000 pages of the bill are “overwhelming” for community banks and the fact that pages of rules must still be written creates too much uncertainty.

Of course, the fact that Romney has finally read some of the law is a step in the right direction. Just last month, he couldn’t name any specifics of the law, saying only, “It’s 2,000 pages. I’m sure there’s something in there that’s good.” Now, he finds that the law’s regulation of derivatives and policy “to have different capital requirements if someone is holding a home mortgage compared to someone holding high-risk securities” actually “does make sense.”

His realization of the law’s efficacy makes his call for repeal all the more perplexing. After all, a repeal would not only block necessary consumer protections from taking effect but would also “allow the nation’s largest financial institutions — including those at the center of the 2008 financial crisis — to operate just as they did before the crash.” With Republicans already feeling the backlash for their role in the economic downturn, Romney may want to consider exactly whose interests he’s fighting for.

Earlier this year, congressional Democrats, led by Rep. G.K. Butterfield (D-NC), signed off on a letter supporting the AT&T merger with T-Mobile. The letter listed a litany of pro-merger talking points, including the claim that the merger will expand coverage to 97 percent of the population and generate “thousands of jobs.” But as Tim Karr argues on the Free Press blog, the arguments appear lifted directly from AT&T lobbyists:

– Leaked Letter Challenges Coverage Claim: Earlier this month, a letter accidentally leaked on the FCC website from an AT&T attorney. The letter makes clear that AT&T could extend its coverage network to the at a fraction of the cost of acquiring T-Mobile. A key AT&T position, that the merger is the only way to increase coverage, appears questionable given the letter. Shortly after the FCC posted the letter, it was retracted from the website — but not before bloggers grabbed a copy of it.

– Jobs Claim Questioned: Will the AT&T merger create thousands of new jobs? In a statement to the press last week, a T-Mobile executive conceded that he is actually preparing to get rid of employees if the merger goes through. “We have, as an organization, extended severance benefits to folks if their jobs are affected by any job-related action after the merger, but those decisions are up to AT&T,” said Eric Schlumpf, a T-Mobile vp for the northwest region. As Dave Saldana points out, AT&T has rapidly laid off thousands of workers in recent years, particularly at call-centers.

Karr notes that AT&T has one of the most aggressive lobbying operations in all of Washington. The company has raised eyebrows with its hefty donations to politicians, grants to non-profits, and the sheer number of lobbyists employed by the telecommunications giant. The Communications Workers of America, meanwhile, explains the benefits of a potential merger between the two companies.