Friday, October 5, 2012

.@jack_welch Meet The Conservatives Who Think Today’s Job Numbers Are A Conspiracy #p2 #tcot

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/10/05/966381/meet-the-conservatives-who-think-todays-job-numbers-are-a-conspiracy/

The Bureau of Labor Statistics released an unexpectedly strong monthly jobs report on Friday, finding a dramatic drop in unemployment to 7.8 percent and revised the number of jobs added in July and August up from initial estimates. While for most Americans, the growing economy is good news, conservatives immediately expressed their skepticism in the jobs report's credibility.

1) Minutes after the report was released, Jack Welch, who famously cooked General Electric's accounting books when he was CEO, accused President Obama of manipulating the numbers to distract from his debate performance:

2) Conn Carroll, a senior writer at the Washington Examiner, doesn't think the problem is the BLS, but a widespread conspiracy of Democrats lying about their unemployment:


3) Former Rumsfeld Chief of Staff Keith Urbahn questioned the timing:


4) Stuart Varney on Fox News claims the drop in unemployment five weeks before the election is too "convenient":

.@gop Proposed cuts in the Farm Bill could eliminate or limit SNAP benefits simply because of owning a home #p2 #tcot

from http://fooddepository.blogspot.com/2012/10/i-dont-want-to-lose-my-home.html

Carole Lorden, of Chicago Ridge, was living the American dream until a few years ago.

"I had a great paying job, saved up and bought a beautiful home. My life was on track," said the 56-year-old former office manager.   "I would read stories about people losing their jobs and struggling and think 'I am glad that's not me.' Then the bottom fell out and now here I am at a food pantry.  Now I am the one struggling." 

Carole's 20-year career as an office manager was cut short when she became very sick. Unable to work, she was forced to go on permanent disability and quickly went through her savings paying for medical bills and her mortgage.  Now at the end of each month she said there is not enough money for food.  She relies on the UMC Worth food pantry, a Greater Chicago Food Depositorypartner agency, and SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, formerly known as Food Stamps) to put food on the table. 

"It has been a godsend," said Carole, about receiving her monthly SNAP benefits.  "I don't want to lose my home. It's the only thing I have left. So this helps me pay for food so I can pay my mortgage."

That could soon change for Carole and many other SNAP participants like her. Lawmakers are considering up to $16 billion in cuts to SNAP in the Farm Bill – the single largest source of federal funding for nutrition assistance programs – potentially limiting or eliminating access to food for thousands of Cook County households. 

The proposed cuts to the Farm Bill would terminate SNAP eligibility to several million people nationwide by eliminating categorical eligibility. Categorical eligibility allows states – including Illinois – to increase or eliminate the federal asset test, which can prevent otherwise eligible low-income households from receiving SNAP benefits all because they own a modest car or a home. 

Eliminating categorical eligibility could potentially remove two to three million individuals from SNAP benefits, and an additional 500,000 households could see their benefits cut by $90 per month. For Carole and many of the more 820,000 SNAP participants living in Cook County, these cuts could mean the difference between putting food on the table and going hungry.

Congress has postponed passing a Farm Bill until after the November elections, meaning there is still time to take action and protect the nutrition safety net. Contact your representative and urge them to pass a Farm Bill that protects and strengthens food assistance programs like SNAP. For more tools and information visit the Food Depository's Advocacy Center atchicagosfoodbank.org/advocate

.@mittromney Romney lashes out against good economic news #p2 #tcot

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/10/05/1140506/-Romney-lashes-out-against-good-economic-news

Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney speaks during the first presidential debate with President Barack Obama (not pictured) in Denver October 3, 2012.    REUTERS/Jim Bourg (UNITED STATES - Tags: POLITICS ELECTIONS USA PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION)
attribution: REUTERS
Good news for America. Not so good for Mr. 47%.
Mitt Romney during his closing statement on Wednesday night:
There's no question in my mind that if the president were to be reelected you'll continue to see a middle-class squeeze with incomes going down and prices going up. I'll get incomes up again. You'll see chronic unemployment. We've had 43 straight months with unemployment above 8 percent.
That's one of Romney's favorite lines. He uses it in just about every stump speech he gives. Ever since unemployment fell below 9 percent, it's been his talking point of first resort. Andnow it's gone. But don't worry, just because it's good news for America doesn't mean Mitt Romney is celebrating. In fact, based on his statement, he seems downright depressed. And maybe even a little bit mad.
This is not what a real recovery looks like. We created fewer jobs in September than in August, and fewer jobs in August than in July, and we've lost over 600,000 manufacturing jobs since President Obama took office. If not for all the people who have simply dropped out of the labor force, the real unemployment rate would be closer to 11 percent.
Poor Mitt. Good news makes him miserable, doesn't it? After hitting double-digits at the height of the Great Recession, the unemployment rate is now at its lowest point since January 2009. Things are getting better, but all he wants to do is convince you that they're getting worse—because his bucket list depends on it.

7:24 AM PT: More sad Romney:

Not what Romney wants to see as he goes to FL. MT @FLGovScott: Tampa & Miami saw largest unemp rate declines in US. http://bls.gov/...

— @Ari_Shapiro via Twitter for iPhone

ORIGINALLY POSTED TO THE JED REPORT ON FRI OCT 05, 2012 AT 07:11 AM PDT.

ALSO REPUBLISHED BY DAILY KOS.


this is not the face of a president #p2 #tcot @gop @mittromney

.@jack_welch @allenwest Solid Jobs Report Spawns Crackpot ‘Job Truthers’ Movement #p2 #tcot

http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/10/job-truthers-jack-welch-bls.php?ref=fpb


This post has been updated.

The economy added 114,000 jobs in September and unemployment declined to 7.8 percent. Not great numbers, but paired with major upward revisions to previous monthly reports and taken in the context of a slowly recovering economy, the report was viewed as good news for America.

Unless, of course, you were hoping for bad news. And apparently quite a few of President Obama's critics were — so much so that they suggested the Bureau of Labor Statistics was part of a vast conspiracy. 

The leader of the "job truther" movement: former GE CEO Jack Welch.

"Unbelievable jobs numbers..these Chicago guys will do anything..can't debate so change numbers," he said on Twitter.

He had some friends in Congress too. Rep. Allen West (R-FL) tweeted "I agree with former GE CEO Jack Welch, Chicago style politics is at work here." He added on Facebook that the jobs report was "Orwellian to say the least and representative of Saul Alinsky tactics from the book 'Rules for Radicals.'"

FOX News' Stuart Varney apparently sensed where his audience was going. Within minutes of their release he told viewers that "there is widespread mistrust of this report and these numbers."

"How convenient the rate drops below 8% [for the] first time in 43 months, five weeks before the election," he added later.

CNBC host Jim Carmer said he was pilloried by viewers for defending the BLS report's integrity.

"This is very hot. You believe the number, you must be a card-carrying Communist," he joked on the air.

Betsey Stevenson, a former chief economist at the Department of Labor under President Obama, said in a phone interview with TPM that the conspiracy theories were misguided in just about every way possible. For starters, the Bureau of Labor Statistics isn't currently run by a political appointee. For most of Obama's term, the commissioner was a holdover appointed by President Bush. The current acting commissioner John Gavin is a career BLS economist, not an Obama appointee.

The underlying data behind the BLS reports is also publicly released and used by analysts across the private sector and academia, meaning a conspiracy would have to survive scrutiny from trained economists of all political stripes.

Nor is there much time to cook the books at the top level if they wanted to.

@mittromney Campaign Surrogate Admits Romney Is Changing Positions Just To Win Votes #p2 #tcot @drudgereport @allenwest @jack_welch #p2 #tcot

http://thinkprogress.org/election/2012/10/05/966031/campaign-surrogate-admits-romney-is-changing-positions-just-to-win-votes/

Mitt Romney campaign surrogate Rep. Phil Gingrey (R-GA) admitted that the GOP presidential candidates was changing his positions and moving towards the middle in order to win over voters, during an appearance on CNN's Starting Point on Friday morning. Gingrey's comments, reminiscent of Romney advisor Eric Fehrnstrom's claim that Romney would "Etch-A-Sketch" his positions after the GOP primary, came in response to the candidate's recent claim that his 47% remarks were "completely wrong."

"[T]he Republican, the conservative candidate in the primary, is always going to lean right and come back to the center for the general, the opposite for the Democrat," Gingrey explained. "That's all you are seeing here. It is very typical. We strong conservatives understand that. There are a lot of undecideds in this country…we want those votes too. So, this is campaign strategy." Watch it:

http://youtu.be/MqiXVpskK3c

Romney began moving towards the center during Wednesday night's debate, distancing himself from his $5 trillion tax cut planembracing portions of his Massachusetts health care law as a model for the states, faulting Wall Street reform for providing "the biggest kiss that's been given to New York banks," and considering eliminating tax deductions for oil companies.


Romney disavows '47 percent' comments he defended #p2 #tcot

http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2012/10/05/14243167-romney-disavows-47-percent-comments-he-defended?lite

The video of Mitt Romney condemning 47 percent of the nation as lazy parasites who refuse to "take personal responsibility and care for their lives" had a significant impact on the campaign. Yesterday, hoping to undo some of the damage, Romney told Fox News' Sean Hannity he didn't really mean what he said.


or those who can't watch clips online, the Republican candidate, asked what he would have said during the debate if President Obama had brought up the controversy, said, "Well, clearly in a campaign with hundreds if not thousands of speeches and question-and-answer sessions, now and then you will going to say something that doesn't come out right. In this case, I said something that's completely wrong."

As an electoral tactic, this certainly makes sense. Candidates who condemn nearly the half the country, out loud, generally struggle to win national elections.

But it's still awfully difficult to take Romney's latest reversal seriously. For one thing, the public has to decide which Romney was sincere -- the one speaking candidly with supporters, when he thought no one else would hear his sentiments, or the one doing damage-control on national television five weeks before Election Day.

@jack_welch and @allenwest - Truthers. Birthers. We're going to need a name for the latest conspiracy-mongers: on job statistics #p2 #tcot

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/10/05/1140545/-Truthers-Birthers-We-re-going-to-need-a-name-for-the-latest-conspiracy-mongers-on-job-statistics

Unbelievable jobs numbers..these Chicago guys will do anything..can't debate so change numbers
— @jack_welch via Twitterrific

Jack Welch's secretary says the former chairman and CEO of General Electric is in meetings for the rest of the day and unavailable to discuss his Tweets.

In regards to today's Jobs report---I agree with former GE CEO Jack Welch, Chicago style politics is at work here...
http://t.co/...
— @AllenWest via web

I don't think BLS cooked numbers. I think a bunch of Dems lied about getting jobs. That would have same effect.
— @conncarroll via web

The extremely bad news is that I don't believe a word of the unemployment rate. Sad. The numbers are too illogical and don't make sense.
— @stevelemois via TweetDeck

umm anyone else thing the jobs numbers are rigged? A .3% drop while only adding 114K jobs? Something smells rotten.
— @Jakeninety8 via TweetDeck

And apparently somebody has been making a few phone calls:

Jim Cramer: "I have people calling for my job" because I said I believe the BLS numbers.
— @edshow via Twitter for iPhone

Knowing how the Bureau of Labor Statistics calculates its numbers, including the fact that a survey of business establishments and of households are done each month, can go a long way toward understanding how there can be seeming anomalies in the results, especially in one month. Understanding math can help, too. Of course, some people don't care about how the numbers are actually derived.

Ezra Klein gets it exactly right:

Let's get one thing out of the way: The data was not, as Jack Welch suggested in a now-infamous tweet, manipulated. The Bureau of Labor Statistics is set up to ensure the White House has no ability to influence it. As labor economist Betsey Stevenson wrote, "anyone who thinks that political folks can manipulate the unemployment data are completely ignorant of how the BLS works and how the data are compiled." Plus, if the White House somehow was manipulating the data, don't you think they would have made the payroll number look a bit better than 114,000? No one would have batted an eye at 160,000. [...]

The number could, of course, be wrong. The household survey is, well, a survey, which means it's open to error. But the internals back it up. The number saying they had jobs increased by about 800,000. That seems high, but it's counting 582,000 who say they got part-time jobs.

There are plenty of issues to discuss in terms of jobs. Everybody agrees we need a lot more of them. We need to generate them faster. They need to pay better than many of them do. We need to convert millions of part-time jobs into full-time jobs because those part-timers NEED full-time jobs. The data behind those needs can be found at the Bureau of Labor Statistics, uncooked, and not tied to partisan motivation. Just because a report that is mostly positive comes out before an election doesn't change that.

But the wackos and the Obama haters are always looking for handholds from which they can spew their nonsense and lies. So, expect this latest conspiracy bullshit to take hold and be amplified by the usual media suspects.


Ratification of Chicago teachers contract sets stage for assault on public education

Chicago teachers have voted to accept a contract supported by both the administration of Democratic Party Mayor Rahm Emanuel and the Chicago Teachers Union. The vote on the contract came two weeks after a CTU delegates meeting ended the seven-day-long strike of 26,000 teachers.

The new contract includes all the essential demands of Emanuel, including the expansion of the school day and year without increased pay, the establishment of a test-based evaluation system and broad powers of principals to hire and fire teachers regardless of seniority. These measures are aimed at victimizing teachers for the crisis of public education. They are the preparation for administration plans to shut down up to 120 schools over the next five years and lay off thousands of teachers.

The vote (with 79 percent in favor) came after an extensive campaign by the CTU to promote the agreement as a "historic" victory. This involved lying about and distorting the content of the contract provisions. For example, the CTU hailed as "ensuring job security" a measure that would encourage, but does not even require, the school board to fill one half of new positions with laid-off teachers.

A leading role in selling the deal was played by the International Socialist Organization, whose members have leadership positions in the CTU. While posturing as "left," the ISO functions as a faction of the union bureaucracy and the Democratic Party establishment.

Teachers were told by the CTU that there was no better contract possible, and the union made clear that it would fight for nothing better if it were rejected. The return to work ended the momentum that the teachers' struggle had, and placed the initiative in the hands of the city administration.

"This shows overwhelming recognition by our members that this contract represents a victory for students, communities and our profession," CTU President Karen Lewis claimed in response to the vote. For his part, Mayor Emanuel said the agreement "means a new day and a new direction for the Chicago public schools."

Emanuel's "new direction" includes the aim of privatizing public education and placing schools under the direct control of for-profit companies. This is part of a national agenda spearheaded by the Obama administration and supported by both big-business parties. "Pro-reform" mayors in other cities have hailed the contract as a model for the entire country.

The strike placed teachers in direct conflict with the Democratic Party and the Obama administration. Emanuel is Obama's former chief of staff and currently a top fundraiser for the President's reelection campaign. The union, committed to its alliance with the Democrats, worked throughout the strike to obscure this fundamental political conflict. Last week, Lewis penned an opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal jointly with American Federation of Teachers President Randi Weingarten, a prominent supporter of Obama and champion of education "reform."

The only organization campaigning against the contract was the Socialist Equality Party, which was acknowledged by the media as the voice of teacher opposition to the sellout. (See, "Vote 'no' on the Chicago teachers contract!")

The utter cynicism of the union's campaign for a "yes" vote was revealed in comments made by CTU Recording Secretary Michael Brunson at a school board meeting a week after the conclusion of the strike. Brunson called for a "truce of peace" with the board and the administration, criticizing recent ads put out by Emanuel praising the contract.

The television ads were funded by Education Reform Now Advocacy, an arm of Democrats for Education Reform. The group consists of Democratic Party officials and supporters who strongly favor the expansion of charter schools, merit pay and test-based evaluation systems to target teachers. In the ads, Emanuel is featured praising the main provisions of the new contract as a victory for this agenda.

Brunson noted that the CTU had worked with the board since last November to craft an agreement, but that this could be disrupted if the mayor was too vocal in hailing it as a victory. "Neither of us wants to win the war and lose the peace," Brunson said. He noted that the contract in question had yet to be ratified by the membership.

According to the Chicago Sun-Times, School Board member Penny Pritzker—a strong backer of Emanuel and Obama, and an operator of charter schools—said she appreciated the CTU's "sentiments about a truce" and that the CPS "shares that sentiment." This "truce" was between the union and the board—against the teachers.

In an editorial calling for teachers to vote for the contract, the Sun-Times—which, along with the Chicago Tribune, viciously attacked teachers during the strike—wrote, "There's been talk by the union leadership since the strike ended of a truce. A resounding yes vote would help the union realize that goal."

Such a "truce" is necessary to get the contract passed to set the stage for new attacks. "The truce is vital because the days ahead promise more conflict and strife," the Sun-Times wrote. "More school closings are coming, the system faces an estimated $1 billion deficit and pension cuts are a near certainty."

In its own editorial, the Tribune wasted no time in demanding even further attacks on teachers. The newspaper cited recent decisions by Moody's to downgrade the school district's debts. The ratings agency declared, "The district will be hard-pressed to make the budget adjustments necessary to close an estimated $1 billion budget cap for fiscal 2014. In particular, the duration of the recent CTU strike demonstrates that labor issues may continue to be a ratings factor."

The Tribune complained that the district had not yet spelled out precisely how it was going to cut costs. Plans for school closings and attacks on teachers' pensions had to be carried out immediately, it insisted.


rest at http://www.wsws.org/articles/2012/oct2012/chic-o05.shtml

Obama's Approval Rating Soars To Its Highest Point In Three Years #p2 #tcot

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/obama-approval-rating-gallup-debate-romney-2012-10#ixzz28RIFKGus

In the midst of a painful news cycle after last night's debate, President Barack Obama received a bright sign for re-election. His Gallup approval rating hit 54 percent, jumping to its highest level since November 2009. 

His approval rating soared four points from the previous day in Gallup's three-day rolling average. The last time he matched that came in the Nov. 11-13, 2009 period. 

The 54-percent mark puts Obama well above the "safe" 50-percent threshold for an incumbent's re-election. 

Obama's highest mark this year came in the sunny aftermath of the Democratic National Convention, when he reached 52 percent. Then it tanked, and since then it has fluctuated wildly.

Here's why the 50 percent threshold is important, per Gallup managing editor Jeffrey M. Jones:

The 50% approval mark is significant because post-World War II incumbent presidents who have been above 50% job approval on Election Day were easily re-elected. Presidents with approval ratings below 50% have more uncertain re-election prospects. Historically, two presidents below 50% in their final approval rating before the election -- George W. Bush and Harry Truman -- won, and three, Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, and George H.W. Bush, lost.

George W. Bush's approval rating at this point in 2004 was only at 50 percent, so comparatively, Obama is in good shape. 



Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/obama-approval-rating-gallup-debate-romney-2012-10#ixzz28RIJ04gC

The Stakes For Today's Jobs Report Are Incredibly High – Here's What You Need To Know

At 8:30 AM ET today, the Bureau of Labor Statistics will release the change in nonfarm payrolls for the month of September.

A consensus survey of economists polled by Bloomberg revealed an expectation of 115K new jobs added last month, up from 96K last month.

Mitt Romney generated some much-needed momentum in the 2012 presidential race this week, owing to a strong performance in Wednesday night's presidential debate with incumbent candidate Barack Obama.

A stronger than expected reading on the health of the labor force from Friday's NFP report has the potential to stymie that momentum at a key point in the race, a mere month ahead of the election.

On the other hand, a bad reading could give Romney some more ammo to use against Obama in the final month of the campaign.

The figures will be the latest read on employment trends in what has been a disappointing 2012 so far on the labor front, which can be seen in the chart below:

NFP chart


Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/september-nfp-jobs-report-preview-2012-10#ixzz28RHT352w

6 Books Banned Thanks To Arizona’s Ban of Ethnic Studies

NOTE:  This "recycled" post from earlier this year reminds us that we need to think about banned books every week – not just this one.

Just over a year ago, a controversial ban (HR 2281) on ethnic studies classes in Arizona public schools went into effect. The law bans classes that "promote the overthrow of the United States government and resentment toward a race or class of people" and also prohibits courses that are designed "primarily for students of a particular ethnic group and those that advocate ethnic solidarity rather than treat students as individuals." Critics, such as Care2′s Amelia Thomson-Deveaux, contended that the "law openly discriminates against minorities"; certainly the political climate in Arizona has been "unspeakably hostile to immigrants and minorities."

The ban was proposed in response to the 13-year-old Mexican American history program in the Tucson Unified School District, in which more than 60 percent of the students are from Mexican American backgrounds. Noting that their courses are open to all students, the Tucson school district was initially not worried about the ban. But after being told that it would face a multimillion dollar penalty in the form of the loss of state funds, the district's governing board has ended the Mexican-American history program.

In addition to the ethnic studies ban, the Tucson school district released a list of books that will be banned from its schools. A number of books from Mexican American studies classrooms have reportedly been boxed up and removed from classrooms.

Debbie Reese at American Indians in Children's Literature (ACLC) has posted a list of the books from an audit of Tucson's Mexican American Studies program; the findings were published in May of 2011. She writes that "At this point is is not known if all the books listed below were boxed and removed. They were placed in storage."

Jeff Biggers at Salon has reviewed the list and found that it contains

Here are six more books that have been sent to the Tucson school district's Textbook Repository because "race, ethnicity and oppression" are among their "central themes."

I suppose you could say that it is a bit ironic that the state of Arizona, in the name of banning books about such "themes," is conducting its own campaign of suppression of knowledge and learning in an effort resembling the tactics of repressive regimes.

Landing of Columbus (2)

Rethinking Columbus: The Next 500 Years by B. Bigelow and B. Peterson

Maria Garza Lubeck of the Children's Defense Fund has praised this book, which has changed the way the "discovery of America" is taught. Says Lubeck:

Until we realize that history is comprised of the good, the bad, and the ugly, we will never be truly free. This book is an important step in unifying our common destiny.

Rethinking Columbus includes an essay by Tucson author Leslie Marmon Silko, a recipient of a MacArthur Foundation genius grant recipient and  of a Native Writers' Circle of the Americas Lifetime Achievement Award.

Painting by John Vanderlyn via Wikimedia Commons



Read more: http://www.care2.com/causes/6-books-banned-tucson.html#ixzz28RHEtN6G


Read more: http://www.care2.com/causes/6-books-banned-tucson.html#ixzz28RH8J1FL

.@RepPaulRyan Paul Ryan: "Let's Make This Country a Tax Shelter" (VIDEO) @drudgereport @mittromnew

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/10/paul-ryan-lets-make-country-tax-shelter-video

After calling the Cayman Islands "the place where you hide your money," Ryan said we should make the United States more like that notorious tax haven.



In 2010, Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), now Mitt Romney's running mate, called the Cayman Islands "the place you hide your money," arguing that the United States needs to slash tax rates below those of other countries in order to make this country "a haven for capital formation." But in previously unreported comments, from an interview with American Business Magazine in August 2011, Ryan went even further on the same topic, saying, "let's make this country a tax shelter for other countries instead of having other countries be a tax shelter for America."

Romney has been criticized for his use of controversial tax techniques and overseas investment vehicles, including some in the Caymans—where he has at least $30 million in assets—and other well known tax havens. Here's how one expert described tax haven countries to our colleague Stephanie Mencimer:

James Henry, a former chief economist at McKinsey & Co., describes offshore tax havens like the "bar scene in Star Wars." He explains, "Dictators and kleptocrats used them to conceal stolen loot. Arms dealers and drug dealers use them to launder their deals. Google and Apple and Pfizer use them to park their intellectual property and pay themselves tax-free royalties. Banks use them to park lousy loans and stash the offshore accounts and assets under management of their wealthy individual clients, many of which are paying zero taxes back home…And so on."

Here's the transcript of the full Ryan interview; the "tax shelter" line, which was pointed out toMother Jones by a tipster, begins at 18:22 in the full video, which you can see here. You can also jump down to the full Q&A.

As you can see in the charts below, the United States already raises significantly less money(as a percentage of GDP) from corporate taxes than most other first-world nations, and although corporate tax rates are high here, corporations' effective tax rates—what they actually pay—are lower than those in most other first-world economies.


Romney’s preposterous arguments for not telling you which tax breaks he’d abolish #p2 #tcot

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2012/10/romney_s_tax_deduction_plan_why_won_t_he_tell_you_which_loopholes_he_d_close_.html?wpisrc=newsletter_rubric

152765706

Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan having a good laugh.

Photo by MANDEL NGAN/AFP/GettyImages

In Wednesday's presidential debate, Mitt Romney said he would cut tax rates by 20 percent. He promised to do this without costing the government any revenue or forcing middle-class taxpayers to make up the difference. How would he make the math work? By eliminating tax loopholes and deductions.

No way, said President Obama: "If you are lowering the rates the way you described, Governor, then it is not possible to come up with enough deductions and loopholes that only affect high-income individuals to avoid either raising the deficit or burdening the middle class."

Romney insisted he could make the numbers add up, but he wouldn't say how. "I'm going to work together with Congress" to figure out "what are the various ways we could bring down deductions," he asserted.


This preposterous dodge has been going on for weeks. Romney, Paul Ryan, and their surrogates have refused to say which deductions they'd eliminate. But their magic accounting, whatever it is, can't be half as creative as the arguments they've concocted for hiding it. Here's a catalogue of their excuses so far.

1. Specificity is for accountants. Last week on Meet the Press, David Gregory objected that Romney "has failed to enumerate any of the deductions that he would eliminate." Romney's representative on the show, Gov. Chris Christie, R-N.J., dismissed the objection: "Gov. Romney has laid out a direction and a vision for the direction of this country. He's not an accountant. He is not going to go line by line, as much as you like him to do, through the budget."

2. Specificity is for incumbents. George Stephanopoulos made the same point to Christie on This Week: "Gov. Romney has not been willing to lay out which deductions are going to go away for the wealthy." Christie replied: "Well, listen, the president of the United States has an obligation after four years as being president to be the one who is the most specific."

3. Specificity is presumptuous. On Sept. 16, David Brody of the Christian Broadcasting Network asked Ryan: "Is there a reason you guys aren't naming specific tax loopholes?" Ryan humbly explained his reticence: "We don't want to presume to say, 'Here's exactly our way or the highway. Take it or leave it, Congress.'"

4. Specificity is micromanagement. On Sept. 27, CNBC's Andrew Ross Sorkin asked Sen. Rob Portman, R-Ohio, "I just want to know if we're going to get specifics by the time November rolls around." Portman lectured him: "You don't dictate to Congress exactly how it's going to be done. You need to work with Congress to actually get it done. You know, this is a president in Barack Obama who has not been able to work with Congress on anything substantial … And so I think it does not make sense to lay out all the specifics."


Thursday, October 4, 2012

It's Official: Big Bird Was the Star of the First Presidential Debate

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/big-bird-mitt-romney-obama-presidential-debate-376550

Mitt Romney Big Bird Split - H 2012

The GOP candidate's promise to cut off taxpayer money to PBS was rewound and rewatched more than any other in Wednesday's telecast.

We now have proof that Big Bird was a huge hit during Wednesday night's presidential debate, even though the giant yellow creature from Sesame Street didn't actually attend the proceedings.


When GOP candidate Mitt Romney said he would yank taxpayer money from PBS, even though he loves Big Bird, more TiVo users rewound and rewatched that moment than any other in the debate.

PHOTOS: Politics of Fashion: Behind the Sudden Disappearance of Paul Ryan's Colorful Neckwear

"I'm sorry Jim, I'm gonna stop the subsidy to PBS," Romney told debate moderator Jim Lehrer, who is executive editor for PBS NewsHour. "I like PBS. I love Big Bird. I actually like you, too. But I'm not gonna keep on spending money on things to borrow money from China to pay for it."

See video below.

To gather the data, said senior vp Tara Maitra, TiVo takes an anonymous viewing sample from its users -- down to the secon -- in order to determine viewing behavior, including by political affiliation.

PHOTOS: 15 of the Best Election-Themed Movies

TiVo reported two moments in particular where viewer preferences varied according to their politics:

  1. Viewers of the Fox News Channel, who lean primarily Republican, watched Romney deliver the line, "I have a friend who says that you don't just pick the winners and losers, you pick the losers," far more than did viewers of MSNBC, who lean primarily Democratic.