A knife-wielding, overweight sex offender dropped dead while raping a 77-year-old Texan woman. Isabel Chavelo Gutierrez broke off his attack to complain he wasn’t feeling well—then keeled over. The victim ran from the house, and by the time police arrived, Gutierrez, 53, was dead. Investigators believe he died of…
Continue reading …
Those with close ties to Republican White House hopefuls who took part in Monday night’s debate speak about their performance and the campaign ahead. (June 13)
Continue reading …
Seven US Republican presidential contenders have met face-to-face in their first major debate, with Mitt Romney, the former Massachusetts governor, shaping up as the front-runner for the 2012 race. The White House hopefuls criticised President Barack Obama’s handling of the economy from the opening moments of their first major debate of the campaign season on Monday night. Newt Gingrich, the former House speaker, was the first among seven contenders on stage to assail the president’s economic policies, saying with 14 million unemployed Americans, “We need a new president to end the Obama Depression”. The nationally televised forum in New Hampshire on Monday included most of the…
Continue reading …Paula Brooks, who claimed to be editor of LezGetReal.com, admitted to the Washington Post that ‘she’, too, was a man A second supposedly leading lesbian blogger was exposed as a man masquerading as a gay woman, a day after the Gay Girl in Damascus blog was revealed to be the fictional creation of a married male student from Edinburgh. Paula Brooks, who claimed to be the executive editor of a US-based lesbian site LezGetReal.com, told the Washington Post that “she”, too, was a man – in this case, a 58-year-old retired construction worker from Ohio called Bill Graber. The LezGetReal blogger’s identity began to come into question last week as doubts over the Gay Girl in Damascus blog intensified, voiced, among others, by the feminist blogger Liz Henry, who writes at BlogHer.com. Before starting the Gay Girl in Damascus blog in February, Tom MacMaster, the Edinburgh student masquerading as Amina Abdullah Araf al Omari, had written posts on LezGetReal.com. Graber, masquerading as Brooks, had supplied information to a number of news outlets, including the Guardian, which pointed towards an Edinburgh IP address for the Amina blog. But the LezGetReal editor’s own conduct increasingly led to questions over her own identity. Material released online on Sunday, which resulted in an admission by MacMaster that he was Amina, also raised questions about Brooks, including speculation over whether the two were creations of the same person. MacMaster, in a contrite blog post on Monday, even apologised to “Paula Brooks” as a handful of named victims of his deception. Challenged on Monday by the Washington Post, Graber said he had started the blog after witnessing the mistreatment of close lesbian friends. “I didn’t start this with my name because … I thought people wouldn’t take it seriously, me being a straight man,” he said. He said his interaction with Amina was purely coincidental, “a major sock-puppet hoax crash[ing] into a major sock-puppet hoax.” “Sock puppet” is the term used by bloggers to describe a fake persona adopted by a blogger who may also be posting under another name. Amina often “flirted” with Brooks, the paper said – with neither man apparently realising that the other was also a man pretending to be a lesbian. Brooks told reporters that “she” was deaf, and so telephone interviews had to be conducted through her “father”. The Guardian spoke a number of times to a man masquerading as Brooks’s father, after which suspicions were raised that Brooks was a man and was also potentially posing as Amina. Further investigations established that, rather like the supposed young woman in Syria, even close associates had never met Brooks, and that her claims to have a PhD in archaeology from Bryn Mawr college, a masters from Gallaudet University and a BA from Duke University, were false. In an email to the Guardian on Thursday, during our investigations, Brooks said: “Now I have a real day job … and a real off blog life … and I will be real annoyed if you intrude in that … you get my message?” The blogger, who claimed to have three children, said her “father” was “totally up [her] ass” following the paper’s inquiries. In another email Graber/Brooks wrote: “Let me be clear here … we are both the victim of this ‘woman’s’ scam.” Challenged directly by email on Sunday, before MacMaster’s admission, about the allegations that she was Amina, Brooks confirmed that “she” was an avatar, or false identity, and directed this reporter to a blog dated 2007 that described a woman’s experience of coming out. It was headed with the following Shakespeare quotation: “To thine own self be true, and it must follow, as the night the day, thou canst not then be false to any man.” Melanie Nathan , an LGBT and human rights advocate who was a partner in LezGetReal.com and had also been taken in by Graber, told the Guardian of her feelings of betrayal. “I left the site because I believed that Amina ‘the Gay Girl from Damascus’ was not authentic,” said Nathan. “I told Paula – Bill – that Amina was suspect and she went ballistic on me and called me a bigot.” “I was completely taken in. She [Paula] is a person to me, a real person with this persona, with children.” “The whole gay community of bloggers is freaking out right now because everyone in some shape or form has encountered Paula Brooks. It has had a severe impact on the trust among the web of bloggers who are interconnected and work with each other. “In my opinion, what Graber has done, to be a straight man calling himself a lesbian, is tantamount to impersonating an entire community.” Linda LaVictoire, a contributor at LezGetReal.com who writes as Linda Carbonelli, told the Washington Post: “I was completely taken in. I have been completely taken in for three years.” Blogging Gay rights Syria Middle East Esther Addley Ben Quinn guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Mitt Romney takes on Michele Bachmann, Tim Pawlenty and others in the New Hampshire Republican debate – live 8.51pm ET: Crowd shot. Lots of bored people in the audience. And I’m not surprised, each candidate is essentially saying the same thing, and just repeating catchphrases. The format is helping: 30 second answers do not encourage discursive thinking. Ads break! 8.45pm ET: Some classic Newt Gingrich brand of bullshit here. Asked about Nasa and the space programme, Gingrich chunters on about how the failure of the space programme was caused by Nasa. Now there we were thinking the whole “man on the moon” thing was a success, but no. According to Newt, if the zillions of dollars given the Nasa had been given to the private sector, then “We would today probably have a permanent station on the moon.” Oh yes. The moderator asks the rest of the group if they too blame Nasa. Lots of foot-shuffling until Tim Pawlenty – good on him – actually speaks up for Nasa and says the space programme is worth keeping. Newt then claims he was misquoted – by himself? – and they he didn’t say Nasa was at fault. A lot of Republicans say that Newt Gingrich has a “brilliant mind”. Tonight he seems to have several minds, all on the same issue. 8.38pm ET: The reaction on Twitter to the format of the debate isn’t great. Now Romney is confronted with his previous words saying that if the government bailed out the auto industry, then “you can kiss the US auto industry goodbye”. Now that sounds pretty stupid, since the US auto industry is doing OK right now. Romney says no that’s not what he emant, and blah blah blah. Especially blah. The entire corps of candidates say they would have opposed all the 2008-2009 financial bail outs. Wow, from a laboratory point of view, it’s almost worth wanting to see what would happen if that actually occured. 8.36pm ET: Elvis or Johnny Cash, Bachmann is asked. “Oh that’s really tough,” she says. “Both.” Oh come on. Johnny Cash is not fit to shine Elvis’s shoes, or his spandex jumpsuit. 8.34pm ET: Ad break! 8.30pm ET: “Right to work legislation” is the next topic, in this situation that means “no unions”. “We live in the United States of America,” replies Tim Pawlenty, which is self-evident, “and no one should be forced to join anything”. Oh god. Now CNN’s John King is asking “this or that” questions. What’s that all about? The first question is to Rick Santorum and it’s: Leno or Conan? “Neither,” is Santorum’s first response. A new low for American political debate? What’s next, a quick round of “shag, marry, kill”? 8.29pm ET: Rick Santorum break. 8.28pm ET: Tim Pawlenty is asked, and he says the country is carrying 50 pounds of rocks on their back, “and one of those rocks is Obamacare,” claiming he knows someone who has moved their entire company out of America because of healthcare reforms. Uh huh. 8.24pm ET: Herman Cain starts every answer: “As a businessman…”. Kind of fluffy answer on the Tea Party though. Cain’s major policy is that he’ll get experts together, find the right answer, and do it. It’s so simple. Maybe those politicians should try it? Ron Paul is asked about encouraging manufacturing and it appears to be going back on the gold standard, basically. Not entirely convincing. 8.22pm ET: Bachmann is asked about the influence of the Tea Party. “The Tea Party is made up of disaffected Democrats,” she claims, among other things. Not strictly true. Bachmann is wowing the crowd. “President Obama is a one term president!” she shouts, to some cheers. 8.21pm ET: Rick Santorum is asked a question. It’s always to have a break. 8.14pm ET: Michele Bachmann is asked about abolishing “Obamacare”. Her eyes gleam. Open goal! Now Romney is asked about Pawlenty’s snide remark about “Obamneycare” – a play on Obama + Romney + healthcare = Obamneycare, given how Romney backed a similar healthcare bill in Massachusetts. Mitt says it’s all different, and so forth. Hmm. Pawlenty is asked about his use of “Obamneycare,” and Pawlenty mentions that Obama specifically mentioned Romney’s healthcare plan as a role model. Pawlenty’s being very arch here and doing quite well. Do you want to respond, Romney is asked. But he won’t. Instead he says: “Why didn’t the president give me a call and ask me what worked?” Oh Mitt, really? You want voters to think you’d have co-operated with Obama on this? When in a hole, stop digging. In conclusion: everyone hates Obamacare and possibly Obamneycare. 8.10pm ET: Newt Gingrich is asked about the economy and he immediately harks back to the Reagan tax cuts “which I helped passed”. That was like a million years ago. Seriously, like 28 years ago. Half the voters have no idea what he’s talking about. Michele Bachmann when asked about the economy instead hijacks the discussion by announcing that she has officially filed to run for the presidency. Like, wow. Ron Paul gets a big laugh when asked if President Obama had done anything right on the economy. “That’s a tough question,” he grins. Anyway the answer is free markets, says Ron. Isn’t it always? 8.07pm ET: First question is on the economy, and Herman Cain has a pretty coherentish answer about changes to taxes, no idea what it means. Santorum just bangs on about how awful Obama has been. Tim Pawlenty is asked about his plan and he says “America is not Portugal,” and follows up his nutty claim that the US can have a long-run 5% rate of growth, which is nonsense. But he says that if Brazil can do it, then the US can. He’s wrong. Romney is asked. “Tim has the right instincts,” he replies, in a neat piece of patronising, and then pivots onto attacking Obama. But he’s running over time, and John King, the moderator, has to sort of go “Uh, uh, uh” to interupt him and shut him up. 8.05pm ET: A question from the audience but I calculate that the assembled candidates have 80,000 children in one way or another between them. Are they running to be head of a Parent-Teacher Association? 8.03pm ET: OMG, Ron Paul beats them all by mentioning that he has delivered 4,000 babies! Which is a true fact because he used to be an OBGYN. Poor Tim Pawlenty, he only has two children. Herman Cain: “I am not a politician. I am a problem solver.” But only two children and three grand children. Solve that problem Herman Cain! 8.01pm ET: CNN’s John King says “This will be unlike any presidential primary you’ve ever seen.” Somehow I doubt that. The candidates are introducing themselves. Rick Santorum mentions he has seven children. Then Michele Bachmann beats him with five children – and 28 adopted children! Really. Mitt Romney has five sons and 16 grand kids. Does that beat Bachmann? Good question! 7.55pm ET: Here we go. Seconds out. It’s two hours long. Are you ready to rumble? 7.25pm ET: What, you may be wondering, is that sign all about at the top of this live blog, the one reading “Romney RINO”. It’s a Reuters photo taken outside the debate venue this evening – note the side-arm apparently being carried by the sign-holder. Anyway, RINO stands for Republican In Name Only, and it is a term of internecine abuse in the Republican party. Many conservative Republicans believe this about Romney, and they have good reason to, since the healthcare bill he passed as governor in Massachusetts resembles the hated “Obamacare” passed by the Democrats. But Romney has a long history of flip-flopping on his positions, so much so that sales of special “Romney flip-flips” (as in footwear) usual appear around events such as this. 7.14pm ET: To warm things up, here’s a piece I wrote earlier today on the state of the Republican party presidential field – and why “running for president” doesn’t mean what it sounds like it means: Think of the Republican presidential primaries as a political version of Big Brother or American Idol or Top Chef. The majority of contestants quickly realise they don’t have a real chance of winning but they crave the exposure for what it might lead to. What are the three most exciting words in the American lexicon? ” National donut day ” of course. But surely a close runner-up is: “Republican presidential debate”. National donut day was last week, and tonight it’s the Republican party candidates debate, as six men and one woman (not Sarah Palin, sorry) fight for the right to take on Barack Obama in the 2012 presidential elections. We’ll be live-blogging the event right here from the halls of St Anselm College in Manchester, New Hampshire. Here’s a quick run-down of the cast of characters we’ll be meeting tonight: • Mitt Romney: the former governor of neighbouring Massachusetts is currently leading the polls, having been running for president since 2007 (seriously). With a campaigning style so wooden you could make furniture from it, Romney’s hard work and much-touted business background have helped him in the opinion polls. Many Republicans think he’s too liberal on matters such as healthcare, and don’t trust him. • Tim Pawlenty: a former governor of Minnesota, he appears to be running for the role of “earnest older brother” in a Disney movie. Despite being moderate and sensible, his name recognition is submarine-like, while his campaigning style makes Romney’s seem like a Las Vegas casino in comparison. Probably needs to attack Romney with a broken bottle to make an impact tonight. • Michele Bachmann: also from Minnesota, Bachmann is a member of the House of Representatives and a fully paid up member of the Tea Party. She is currently being touted as “Sarah Palin with brains,” which is setting the bar pretty low. Very conservative. • Newt Gingrich: this may be Newt’s first and last debate since last week his entire campaign quit. The former Speaker of the House is a divisive figure, with some thinking he’s full of hot air, while others think he’s full of something else. He’ll have to explain why even people he paid to support him won’t do so any more. • Ron Paul: the stalwart of the Libertarian wing of the Republican party is running for the third time, and while he has a small and dedicated of followers his dovish policies on national security won’t find favour with the Republican voters. • Herman Cain: the chief executive of Godfathers Pizza has never run for or held elected office in any capacity. Naturally he’s doing very well, given the rest of the field. Thinks running a pizza chain is excellent preparation for being president of the United States. • Rick Santorum: Google his name [NSFW!] and you’ll see what he’s all about. To the right of Attila the Bachmann. Running to get a talkshow or something. Right, shall we begin? Republican presidential nomination 2012 Republicans Mitt Romney New Hampshire Tim Pawlenty Michele Bachmann Newt Gingrich Ron Paul US politics US elections 2012 CNN United States Richard Adams guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
NEW YORK — Safely removed from the Obama White House, where he was a prime architect of economic policy, Larry Summers now tells us what most regular people have known for too long: The economy is ailing and in grave need of help. In a sobering and clarifying opinion piece in Sunday’s Financial Times, Summers laments that “the US is now halfway to a lost economic decade,” describing a contemporary scene in which “new college graduates are moving back in with their parents.” Most strikingly, Summers takes direct aim at the assumption that amounts to the default stance inside the White House: If we demonstrate our resolve at attacking long-term budget deficits by cutting spending, the market will gain “confidence” — a mystical term among practicing economists. Eventually, everything will get better. Nonsense, Summers effectively scoffs. “A sick economy constrained by demand works very differently from a normal one,” he writes, before calling for a fresh stimulus while pointedly rejecting deficit-cutting as the fix. “The fiscal debate must accept that the greatest threat to our creditworthiness is a sustained period of slow growth.” Translation: For those offering up scary warnings that a failure to slash spending courts the prospect of Uncle Sam running out of money and defaulting on his debts, the quickest way there is to slash spending and ensure that commerce grinds to a halt. Never mind that Summers is now talking a very different line than the one he dispensed when he still worked at the White House. (In another Financial Times piece last July, he offered up deficit reduction as a curative therapy, a dose of discipline that would instill “increased confidence and reduced capital costs that encourage investment, even before the deficit is reduced.”) The point is that Summers has joined the crisis camp, adding his booming voice to those intoning that we must get serious about investing in economic growth — a process that requires setting aside the tedious and small-minded budget-cutting debate consuming all the oxygen in Washington. Either that, or we run the risk of condemning a whole generation to years of chronically lean economic opportunities. Summers’ warning underscores a trend that should make anyone skeptical of what is happening in Washington. He is the latest in a parade of economists to depart the White House, and then express deep fears about where the country is headed. Jared Bernstein spent the first two-plus years of the administration serving as economic policy adviser to Vice President Biden, before last month joining the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities as a senior fellow. In a blog post last week, Bernstein vented dismay at the sorry state of the policy debate, declaring, “It’s hard not to feel like we’re stuck in a bad place and there’s nothing we can do about it.” There is plenty we can do, Bernstein argued, beginning with getting past the notion that we can scrimp our way back to prosperity. We have to invest in measures that will stimulate job growth, such as providing aid for reeling states and boosting infrastructure spending. Christina Romer, who chaired the White House Council of Economic Advisers, stepped down last fall to return to her academic career at the University of California, Berkeley. “The Administration and Congress should have done more in the fall of 2009 and early 2010 to aid the recovery,” she said in a recent speech. You can already imagine the cadences of Austan Goolsbee, still chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers yet already on his way back to the University of Chicago, presumably soon to be criticizing the tepid White House response as another year went by with the promised recovery still elusive in most American homes. (For now, Goolsbee is sticking to the story that things are getting better and will become swell if we wait patiently.) But the candor of the former White House insiders highlights something of more than symbolic import: a growing disconnect between the economy as seen by people in Washington and the economy experienced by most Americans, which is failing to satisfy basic needs while stoking anger, dismay and frustration. Last week, during a conference of personal finance editors and writers at the White House, I listened to Gene Sperling, director of the National Economic Council, speak for half an hour about the need for a comprehensive solution to the federal budget deficit. He took us deep into the weeds of the debate with the Republicans over how to go about it, drawing sharp (and familiar) differences between the two sides. In Sperling’s account, the Republicans want to balance the budget by starving old people and being mean to adorable children, while Democrats want an orderly and responsible budget-cutting process, one sensitive to the reality that the economy is still struggling, reinforcing the need for relief programs. It seems obvious that the Obama administration’s approach to attacking the deficit is indeed more enlightened than that of the Republicans, who have sought to effectively dismantle Medicare while punishing jobless people by revoking their unemployment insurance. Yet the session with Sperling cemented the fact that, despite growing evidence the economy will not heal on its own, this administration is failing to marshal an adequate response, accepting the conventional wisdom that all potential initiatives are political non-starters. The White House has affirmed the logic of the moment, that the only thing worth discussing is how best to confront the deficit. When I asked Sperling about this, he said nothing to disabuse me of this view. Deficit reduction “is a means and component of a strategy to have a growing economy that fits our values of having a strong middle class,” Sperling said. “Bringing confidence to the public and investors that Washington, even with its divisions, is capable of coming together and making progress in terms of living within our means.” But this is precisely the wrong place for bipartisan unity, and the wrong sort of confidence to foster. Indeed, one can reasonably argue that it is precisely because markets are confident in Washington’s seriousness about cutting budgets that employers are so reluctant to add to their payrolls and resume hiring. If austerity is the guiding light, who can have confidence that working people will have money to spend anytime soon? If Democrats and Republicans alike are insistent on rolling back aid for strapped local governments, accepting layoffs of teachers and police officers as an unavoidable consequence, then who can feel confident that the economy will gain functionality any time soon? In a poll of economists published in Monday’s Wall Street Journal respondents labled weak hiring — not the deficit — as the biggest threat to the so-called economic recovery underway. But the White House seems tuned to a different channel. This pursuit of market confidence, with the social safety net served up as sacrificial offering, is eroding the broader confidence needed by business owners, investors and working people: the sense that those in charge of the government are intent on tackling what is increasingly looking like a full-blown economic crisis.
Continue reading …
Strauss-Kahn. Schwarzenegger. Edwards. Weiner. It’s been a helluva month for men behaving badly. Am I the only one who sees this as a good thing? Has the tradition of men having it their way — with women bearing the consequences — hit a speed bump? Historically, women who have been victimized by men — whether by a sexually harassing boss or a philandering husband — were trained to hit the mute button. “He’ll fire you if you complain.” “He’ll divorce you if you confront him.” “Be glad you have a job / a roof over your head.” And it’s worked. But, of course, men have always had a litany of “universal truths” to back up their behavior that have been passed down from generation to generation: “Men have their needs.” Or, “For men, it’s just a physical thing.” Or my all-time favorite, “Boys will be boys.” Well, not so fast, boys. The most potent images from this, the ugly month of May, speak with certitude about how quickly those age-honored traditions are unraveling: Strauss-Kahn doing the perp walk in handcuffs. Weiner crying at the mic. And not a single wife standing silently at her cad’s side, her face frozen in shame. (Okay, maybe Mme. Strauss-Kahn did — but they’re French.) This time, the wives were silent, alright — silent as in gone. As those of us who fought the battles of the feminist movement in the early 70s know, change doesn’t happen in giant leaps, but, rather, in smaller, significant steps. That’s why this string of salacious spring scandals has filled me with optimism — because, in each case, women have drawn a new line in the sand. Maria Shriver did not stand by her man when he admitted to fathering a child with the family’s housekeeper — but, instead, packed up, moved into a hotel, and is now reportedly filing for divorce. John Edwards may have decided to stand firm and fight his indictment for using campaign funds to hide his paramour and love child, but he’s become a national punchline, thanks in large part to columnists like Gail Collins and Maureen Dowd, who’ve spared few words in denouncing the former senator as a sleaze. Anthony Weiner may claim that his wife of 11 months is standing by him, but I’d say he’s in much deeper manure with those other women in his life — namely, colleagues Rep. Nancy Pelosi of California and Rep. Allyson Schwartz of Pennsylvania, who are leading the charge in calling for an investigation into Weinergate, at best, or expelling Weiner from the House of Representatives altogether. And the coast-to-coast mantra has become: “Boys may be boys, but it’s time for men to start acting like men.” But of all the drama in this explosive month of cheating hearts and Tweeting parts, the person who has given me the most hope is the 32-year-old chambermaid from New York’s Sofitel Hotel, who emerged from her brutal attempted rape by the head of the International Monetary Fund, not by slinking away in shamed silence, fearing that her word could never match that of someone so powerful, but instead by going directly to the authorities and busting the offender. The bravery that took cannot be overstated. Here is a woman from Guinea who’d been granted asylum in the United States and lives quietly in New York, raising her 15-year-old daughter. Her annual salary is probably around $20,000, which, according to the National Bureau of Labor Statistics, is what a woman makes for spending long days cleaning bathrooms, changing sheets and mopping up after strangers. That’s less than 10 dollars an hour, and she needs every cent to raise a kid in New York. But she put everything on the line to stand up for herself and her right to work with dignity. With the courage of a Rosa Parks, she refused to submit to — and rebelled against — a long-entrenched system. In her case, that system is one that not only expects chambermaids to tolerate the creepy sexual advances of male hotel guests, but in some instances, even assigns the “new girl” to clean the rooms of those more troublesome guests (like the men who “accidentally” let their bathrobes fall open when the maid is in the room). Oh, the fun the boys have had. Not this time, said the chambermaid. And if you doubt for a moment that her voice was raised on behalf of women everywhere, take a look at the photos of the union hotel workers — all women — protesting outside the Manhattan Criminal Court last week, as Strauss-Kahn and his wife made their exit following his arraignment hearing. How striking and poignant and powerful, this army of women in their familiar grey uniforms with fists raised, the fury of helplessness and invisibility at last unleashed. These women did not just blow a whistle. They sounded a siren that has inspired women worldwide. And it will empower every maid who ever hears the lock snap on a hotel room door. Yep, this is a good time. We are seeing the end of a tradition and the beginning of a revolution. And these are the front lines… Photo credit: Reuters/Mike Segar
Continue reading …“Cruelty to the 98%ers” should be the GOP motto for 2012 election, since so much of their economic gadgetry is aimed at only helping the richest of the rich, and taking as much away from working people and the poor as they possibly can. Paul Ryan’s Randian budget is a nightmare and Americans are rejecting it as fast as they can, but someone might have topped him: Several of the 2012 GOP presidential hopefuls have laid out economic platforms that would include huge cuts in the corporate tax rate. Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney (R) called for lowering the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 25 percent , while former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty (R) went a step further, calling for a cut to 15 percent . In an interview published today by the Wall Street Journal, Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) — who is toying with a presidential run herself — decided to one-up both Romney and Pawlenty, calling for a reduction in the corporate tax rate to 9 percent . Adding insult to injury, Bachmann wants to pair that huge tax cut with giant tax reductions for the rich, as well as a tax increase on the working poor : “In my perfect world,” she explains, “ we’d take the 35% corporate tax rate down to nine so that we’re the most competitive in the industrialized world. Zero out capital gains. Zero out the alternative minimum tax. Zero out the death tax. ” Her main goal is to get tax rates down with a broad-based income tax that everyone pays and that “gets rid of all the deductions.” A system in which 47% of Americans don’t pay any tax is ruinous for a democracy, she says, “because there is no tie to the government benefits that people demand. I think everyone should have to pay something.” Let’s take these one at a time. First, cutting the corporate tax rate to 9 percent — a reduction about two and a half times larger than that called for in the radical House Republican budget — would cost more than $2 trillion over ten years. (The Tax Policy Center estimated that a 10 point reduction in the corporate tax rate would cost about $915 billion .)… read on These ideas are insane and I’m not sure why they believe seniors and the elderly will nod their heads in approval, though of course they can always count on the most vicious right wing ideologues. Her ideas as well as many other conservatives these says draw up the battle lines of direct class warfare. I look at her proposals and I say, WTF will happen to me if they have their way in the near future? It’s getting scarier each and every day, people. Matt Yglesias writes: If you’re old, then Bachmann thinks there’s an “obligation” for you to keep your health care and pension benefits. But not only do those of us born later than 1956 have no right to decent health care and pension when we are old, but if we’re right now relying on student loans to make college affordable, that’s going to be cut. If you’re a parent relying on Medicaid to cover your autistic child’s treatment, you’re out of luck. If commute to work and are hoping America continues to have a viable transportation infrastructure, you’re out of luck. Absolutely everyone born after 1956 is going to be subject to immediate draconian cuts in the programs we benefit from, while we’re supposed to believe that nobody born earlier than that will suffer even the slightest bit. Earlier in the interview she’s going on about Ludwig Von Mises and Milton Friedman, but the actual economic agenda here is rather different from small government as such. It’s all about who’s the right kind of people and who’s not. Almost all of America is not the right kind of people. Do they really believe claiming that everyone over 55 will be A-OK is of any comfort? There seems to be a common idea among these fiscal extremists that if they can only convince the old folks that they won’t be hurt, then they’ll have no problem selling this dystopian future to the country. I don’t know why they think that. The over 55ers don’t trust them to keep their word (after all, they’re prepared to tell people 54 and under that all the money they’ve put in was for nothing) and they also tend to love their kids and grandkids enough not to want to consign them to a Death Race 2000 kind of existence. And I think they might need some other people to vote for them so blatantly screwing them probably isn’t going to be a huge selling point.
Continue reading …“Cruelty to the 98%ers” should be the GOP motto for 2012 election, since so much of their economic gadgetry is aimed at only helping the richest of the rich, and taking as much away from working people and the poor as they possibly can. Paul Ryan’s Randian budget is a nightmare and Americans are rejecting it as fast as they can, but someone might have topped him: Several of the 2012 GOP presidential hopefuls have laid out economic platforms that would include huge cuts in the corporate tax rate. Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney (R) called for lowering the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 25 percent , while former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty (R) went a step further, calling for a cut to 15 percent . In an interview published today by the Wall Street Journal, Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) — who is toying with a presidential run herself — decided to one-up both Romney and Pawlenty, calling for a reduction in the corporate tax rate to 9 percent . Adding insult to injury, Bachmann wants to pair that huge tax cut with giant tax reductions for the rich, as well as a tax increase on the working poor : “In my perfect world,” she explains, “ we’d take the 35% corporate tax rate down to nine so that we’re the most competitive in the industrialized world. Zero out capital gains. Zero out the alternative minimum tax. Zero out the death tax. ” Her main goal is to get tax rates down with a broad-based income tax that everyone pays and that “gets rid of all the deductions.” A system in which 47% of Americans don’t pay any tax is ruinous for a democracy, she says, “because there is no tie to the government benefits that people demand. I think everyone should have to pay something.” Let’s take these one at a time. First, cutting the corporate tax rate to 9 percent — a reduction about two and a half times larger than that called for in the radical House Republican budget — would cost more than $2 trillion over ten years. (The Tax Policy Center estimated that a 10 point reduction in the corporate tax rate would cost about $915 billion .)… read on These ideas are insane and I’m not sure why they believe seniors and the elderly will nod their heads in approval, though of course they can always count on the most vicious right wing ideologues. Her ideas as well as many other conservatives these says draw up the battle lines of direct class warfare. I look at her proposals and I say, WTF will happen to me if they have their way in the near future? It’s getting scarier each and every day, people. Matt Yglesias writes: If you’re old, then Bachmann thinks there’s an “obligation” for you to keep your health care and pension benefits. But not only do those of us born later than 1956 have no right to decent health care and pension when we are old, but if we’re right now relying on student loans to make college affordable, that’s going to be cut. If you’re a parent relying on Medicaid to cover your autistic child’s treatment, you’re out of luck. If commute to work and are hoping America continues to have a viable transportation infrastructure, you’re out of luck. Absolutely everyone born after 1956 is going to be subject to immediate draconian cuts in the programs we benefit from, while we’re supposed to believe that nobody born earlier than that will suffer even the slightest bit. Earlier in the interview she’s going on about Ludwig Von Mises and Milton Friedman, but the actual economic agenda here is rather different from small government as such. It’s all about who’s the right kind of people and who’s not. Almost all of America is not the right kind of people. Do they really believe claiming that everyone over 55 will be A-OK is of any comfort? There seems to be a common idea among these fiscal extremists that if they can only convince the old folks that they won’t be hurt, then they’ll have no problem selling this dystopian future to the country. I don’t know why they think that. The over 55ers don’t trust them to keep their word (after all, they’re prepared to tell people 54 and under that all the money they’ve put in was for nothing) and they also tend to love their kids and grandkids enough not to want to consign them to a Death Race 2000 kind of existence. And I think they might need some other people to vote for them so blatantly screwing them probably isn’t going to be a huge selling point.
Continue reading …“Cruelty to the 98%ers” should be the GOP motto for 2012 election, since so much of their economic gadgetry is aimed at only helping the richest of the rich, and taking as much away from working people and the poor as they possibly can. Paul Ryan’s Randian budget is a nightmare and Americans are rejecting it as fast as they can, but someone might have topped him: Several of the 2012 GOP presidential hopefuls have laid out economic platforms that would include huge cuts in the corporate tax rate. Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney (R) called for lowering the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 25 percent , while former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty (R) went a step further, calling for a cut to 15 percent . In an interview published today by the Wall Street Journal, Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) — who is toying with a presidential run herself — decided to one-up both Romney and Pawlenty, calling for a reduction in the corporate tax rate to 9 percent . Adding insult to injury, Bachmann wants to pair that huge tax cut with giant tax reductions for the rich, as well as a tax increase on the working poor : “In my perfect world,” she explains, “ we’d take the 35% corporate tax rate down to nine so that we’re the most competitive in the industrialized world. Zero out capital gains. Zero out the alternative minimum tax. Zero out the death tax. ” Her main goal is to get tax rates down with a broad-based income tax that everyone pays and that “gets rid of all the deductions.” A system in which 47% of Americans don’t pay any tax is ruinous for a democracy, she says, “because there is no tie to the government benefits that people demand. I think everyone should have to pay something.” Let’s take these one at a time. First, cutting the corporate tax rate to 9 percent — a reduction about two and a half times larger than that called for in the radical House Republican budget — would cost more than $2 trillion over ten years. (The Tax Policy Center estimated that a 10 point reduction in the corporate tax rate would cost about $915 billion .)… read on These ideas are insane and I’m not sure why they believe seniors and the elderly will nod their heads in approval, though of course they can always count on the most vicious right wing ideologues. Her ideas as well as many other conservatives these says draw up the battle lines of direct class warfare. I look at her proposals and I say, WTF will happen to me if they have their way in the near future? It’s getting scarier each and every day, people. Matt Yglesias writes: If you’re old, then Bachmann thinks there’s an “obligation” for you to keep your health care and pension benefits. But not only do those of us born later than 1956 have no right to decent health care and pension when we are old, but if we’re right now relying on student loans to make college affordable, that’s going to be cut. If you’re a parent relying on Medicaid to cover your autistic child’s treatment, you’re out of luck. If commute to work and are hoping America continues to have a viable transportation infrastructure, you’re out of luck. Absolutely everyone born after 1956 is going to be subject to immediate draconian cuts in the programs we benefit from, while we’re supposed to believe that nobody born earlier than that will suffer even the slightest bit. Earlier in the interview she’s going on about Ludwig Von Mises and Milton Friedman, but the actual economic agenda here is rather different from small government as such. It’s all about who’s the right kind of people and who’s not. Almost all of America is not the right kind of people. Do they really believe claiming that everyone over 55 will be A-OK is of any comfort? There seems to be a common idea among these fiscal extremists that if they can only convince the old folks that they won’t be hurt, then they’ll have no problem selling this dystopian future to the country. I don’t know why they think that. The over 55ers don’t trust them to keep their word (after all, they’re prepared to tell people 54 and under that all the money they’ve put in was for nothing) and they also tend to love their kids and grandkids enough not to want to consign them to a Death Race 2000 kind of existence. And I think they might need some other people to vote for them so blatantly screwing them probably isn’t going to be a huge selling point.
Continue reading …