Sunday, September 02, 2012
Tax Evasion At Bain Capital ?
It seems that Bain Capital is one of a number of equity fund companies that is having their financial dealings investigated by the New York State Attorney General. He has issued subpoenas to look at their financial records. Attorney General Eric Schneiderman believes these companies have been intentionally listing management fees as capital gains.
Why would that matter? Because management fees should be considered earned income, and taxed as such. But capital gains are taxed at the much lower rate of 15%. By declaring these management fees to be capital gains instead of earned income, Bain Capital could be evading millions of dollars in taxes -- and it would be an intentional and very illegal act.
Was the company doing this while headed by Romney? Nobody knows yet just how far back this illegal evasion has been going on. Hopefully, the Attorney General can figure that out when he gets the financial records. We do know though that Romney still gets a great deal of his income from Bain Capital, and if the company is illegally evading taxes then Romney is benefitting from that.
Frankly, I wouldn't be surprised to learn this is a practice imposed while Romney was still the Bain CEO. After all the lies he has told on the campaign trail, it is quite clear that honesty is not something he values much.
Take Priests/Preachers Off That Pedestal
"People have this picture in their minds of a person planning to [commit child molestation] — a psychopath. But that’s not the case. Suppose you have a man having a nervous breakdown, and a youngster comes after him. A lot of the cases, the youngster — 14, 16, 18 — is the seducer.
"Well, it’s not so hard to see — a kid looking for a father and didn’t have his own — and they won’t be planning to get into heavy-duty sex, but almost romantic, embracing, kissing, perhaps sleeping but not having intercourse or anything like that.
"If you go back 10 or 15 years ago with different sexual difficulties — except for rape or violence — it was very rarely brought as a civil crime. Nobody thought of it that way....And I’m inclined to think, on their first offense, they should not go to jail because their intention was not committing a crime."
The National Catholic Register was negligent in its duty to the victims of pedophile priests by printing the offensive interview. To their credit, they have now removed the interview and posted the following in its place:
Child sexual abuse is never excusable. The editors of the National Catholic Register apologize for publishing without clarification or challenge Father Benedict Groeschel's comments that seem to suggest that the child is somehow responsible for abuse. Nothing could be further from the truth. Our publication of that comment was an editorial mistake, for which we sincerely apologize. Given Father Benedict's stellar history over many years, we released his interview without our usual screening and oversight. We have removed the story. We have sought clarification from Father Benedict.
And Father Groeschel has also reacted to the firestorm created by his ridiculous remarks. He has issued the following apology:
I apologize for my comments. I did not intend to blame the victim. A priest (or anyone else) who abuses a minor is always wrong and is always responsible. My mind and my way of expressing myself are not as clear as they used to be. I have spent my life trying to help others the best that I could. I deeply regret any harm I have caused to anyone.
Frankly, I am shocked that such a statement was ever issued or printed. Anyone with half a brain and an ounce of decency knows that the victims of sex abuse are never at fault. Even if they were the seducers (which I severely doubt), the adult is still at fault. The adult is ALWAYS at fault, and should be punished. But these kind of remarks are indicative of a bigger problem.
Far too often in our society (where the vast majority are religious adherents) we give too much leeway to religious figures. They are placed on a pedestal, and it is assumed that they could not have the same faults as other humans because they claim to speak for god -- a claim that is usually taken for granted and not examined too closely. And this problem is not just with the catholic church. Anyone who has been paying attention in the last few years, will know that many protestant ministers and preachers have also been guilty of inappropriate (and many times illegal) sexual contact with people, both children and adults, in their congregation.
It is time to take religious officials off their pedestal, and realize they are just human beings (that have the same range of faults as all other people). Many are deserving of respect, but many are not. But none should be put on a pedestal and thought to be immune from human mistakes and faults. And none should be excused from their mistakes simply because they claim to represent god.
White House Beer
The White House let it be known that they were brewing their own beer a while back. That caused a lot of people to want the recipe for that beer, and there was even a petition for the president to release the recipes. That has now been done. There are two different brews -- Honey Ale and Honey Porter. Here are the recipes for any of you home brewers who want to give them a try (although you'll have to substitute for the "White House honey):
Clint And The "President"
Supporting The Troops
The Republicans like to brag about supporting our troops, but have done little beyond putting that sticker on their automobile. They have blocked efforts (or tried to block) to give all Americans equal rights, to make sure women get equal pay for equal work, to create new jobs, to extend veterans' benefits, to stop domestic violence, to insure all Americans can vote, to extend unemployment benefits, to help the poor and needy, and to improve our educational system (at all levels). They have done this for the most selfish of reasons -- to defeat a sitting president (and provide for their return to power) and to give more to the rich (including themselves).
Vote to support our troops in November. Vote to kick Republicans out of office.
Saturday, September 01, 2012
The Unmentionables
Amid all the hoopla of the Republican Convention there were a couple of people who played a rather large role in Republican politics in the last few years, but were totally ignored at the convention -- by the delegates and by all of the convention speakers. They are Michael Steele and George W. Bush. The party would like to just put both men in the closet and act like they don't exist -- at least until after the election.
George Bush said he had been invited to the convention, but declined to go. If you believe that, I've got some ocean-front property here in Amarillo that I'll sell you real cheap. George Bush presided over the worst recession this country has experienced since the Great Depression, and his "trickle-down" economic policies were the primary cause of that recession. The American people still blame Bush more than anyone else (including Obama) for the continuing economic mess in this country.
The Republicans are still trying to blame President Obama for the poor economy (even though they have blocked nearly all of his efforts to improve the economy). The last thing they needed at the convention was a reminder that they are still following the failed trickle-down economic theory that threw this country into a jobless recession -- and that's just what Bush showing up at the convention would have done. Romney is trying to sell that policy (deregulation of Wall Street & corporations and massive tax breaks for the rich) again to the voters, and he didn't need Bush reminding voters what happened the last time that policy was pursued.
But it was just Bush's absence (obviously requested) at the convention. Except for one fleeting reference to the "Bush administration" by Condi Rice and a sad attempt by Jeb Bush to rehabilitate his brother's image, none of the convention speakers even mentioned Mr. Bush. The impression that was left was that the last Republican president was Ronald Reagan -- and I think that's exactly the impression Romney and his Republican cohorts wanted.
The other unmentionable was Michael Steele, who was neither seen nor heard from or about in the entire convention. Steele was chosen as the token head of the Republican National Committee in an ill-fated attempt to convince voters (especially minorities) that the Republicans were a "big tent" party that welcomed them. That failed miserably, mainly because the policies of the party were clearly anti-minority. In addition, Steele's tenure tended to anger and alienate the racist teabagger base of the party.
It was part of the reason the teabagger movement turned against the established leaders of the party. And no one wanted a reminder of him at their convention. In fact, Steele told Jon Stewart that he had not been given any convention credentials, and in fact, had not been invited to the convention -- a clear slap in the face for the last party chairman.
There was a third entity barely mentioned at the Republican Convention -- the "tea party". Some of the media seemed to think this meant the party was turning its back on the teabaggers, and they were losing support in the party. Nothing could be farther from the truth. They are the party. The teabaggers now control the Republican Party. All you have to do is look at the list of speakers to know that (like Ted Cruz, Nikki Haley, Marco Rubio, Newt Gingrich, Janine Turner, Rand Paul, Mike Huckabee, Paul Ryan, etc.).
The truth is that the teabaggers and the Republican Party are no longer separate entities. The teabaggers make up the largest part of the party's base (and congressional delegation). To speak of the teabaggers as though they were a separate element would be to deny reality, and would really be a moot point They are the face of the Republican Party.
Romney's New Strategy - Whites Only
I have always thought that was a dangerous strategy for a couple of reasons. In this computer age, it's much harder to instantly change a candidate's image since all of his stances took during the primary can instantly be recalled and used to make him look like a flip-flopper (an image that already dogs Romney too much). Second, his base voters still don't completely trust Romney, and a move to the center could cost him as many votes as it would gain (if it gained any to begin with).
It now looks like Romney and his campaign managers have now realized that "move to the center" strategy won't work. They are casting their hopes in a new direction -- appeal only to whites and get the base out in droves. It started with the choice of Paul Ryan to be the vice-presidential candidate. There's simply no way to move to the center with Ryan in tow. If anything, Ryan drags Romney even further to the right.
The idea now is that with a very good GOTV effort and their subliminal appeals on race (like their attacks on welfare), they can get enough white voters to the polls (and win enough of the white vote) to out vote Obama's very large appeal among minorities. Of course, this assumes that most whites will abandon the president and the Republican teabagger base will show up and vote for Romney. Neither of those is a certainty, but it looks like that's what they are now counting on.
In a recent post, Nate Silver (a very well-respected poll analyst) also thinks this is now the Romney strategy. And he wonders if it can be successful. Here is some of what he has to say on his own blog, FiveThirtyEight:
The argument for a base strategy is something like this: there are very few undecided voters left, and hardly anything has moved the polls. With the election being so close, the contest will come down to turnout. So get your voters as motivated as possible.
A risk for Mr. Romney, however, is that even with a favorable turnout, the Republican coalition may have become slightly too narrow for him to win, given that the party is struggling with Hispanics and other minority voters. . .
Mr. Obama’s share of the white vote will probably not be as strong this year as it was in 2008 (when it wasn’t all that strong to begin with). There is also evidence that the Republican base is more motivated to vote than the Democratic one.
So suppose that the turnout demographics this year look like 2004, when 77 percent of the electorate was white. Furthermore, suppose that Mr. Romney receives the same proportion of the white vote that George W. Bush did in 2004.
However, we’ll assume that Mr. Obama does retain one advantage from 2008. Although fewer minorities turn out, those that do vote for him in the same proportions as 2008, meaning that he gets about 95 percent of the African-American vote, and about two-thirds of the vote from Hispanics, Asians and other racial minorities.
These assumptions yield a very close election — but Mr. Obama wins the popular vote. Specifically, he wins it by about 1.7 percentage points.
Interestingly, that is almost exactly the margin by which Mr. Obama leads Mr. Romney among surveys of likely voters right now. . .
Turning out your base may not be a sufficient strategy if your base has become too narrow. In 2004, Mr. Bush had an excellent base turnout — but he also captured about 40 percent or 45 percent of the Hispanic vote, a share that Mr. Romney is unlikely to reach. Without that relatively strong performance among Hispanics, the election would have been a tossup.
Celebrity Endorsements
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)