NYT Dubiously Claims Buffett Tax Hikes Would Raise Revenues, Falsely Claims Taxes at Historic Low
August 17, 2011 No Comment
New York Times reporter David Kocieniewski reported on the front of Tuesday’s Business section reported on the op-ed by billionaire investor Warren Buffett’s in Monday’s Times which has gone viral in liberal circles. Buffett called for higher taxes on rich people like him in the name of fairness, claiming his 17% effective tax rate was lower than anyone else in his office. Kocieniewski, who in January 2005 took advantage of a book by moderate Republican governor Christine Whitman of New Jersey to attack “conservative hubris” and the Republican party's “lurch to the right,” used the flawed static analysis employed by liberal economists to prove that higher tax rates would automatically lead to higher tax revenues, as if raising rates would have no effect on how people invest their money. With the budget deficit growing and tax rates at a 60-year low, one question will remain near the center of the political debate in the coming months: Should the federal government raise taxes on the rich? Warren E. Buffett, the billionaire investor known as the Oracle of Omaha, pushed the issue to the forefront this week by urging members of the new Congressional supercommittee on deficit reduction to stop “coddling” him and other affluent Americans and raise their taxes. In an opinion article in The New York Times on Monday, Mr. Buffett said he paid just under $7 million in federal payroll and income taxes last year, about 17 percent of his income, a lower percentage than anyone else in his office. …. Whatever the political viability, his proposal would put a significant dent in the nation’s budget shortfall. Based on projections by the Joint Committee on Taxation, the Congressional Budget Office and the Treasury, the tax increase on all three fronts would generate as much as $500 billion in new revenue over the next decade — about a third of what the Congressional committee is supposed to cut from the deficit. Kocieniewski didn’t hit on points raised by David Logan at The Tax Foundation : Mr. Buffett suggests that increasing taxes on the rich ensures that they pay their fair share.
Continue reading …
Click here to view this media Real estate mogul Donald Trump said Monday that he would be willing to pay a higher tax rate but most oil companies would not because they are not patriotic. “Warren Buffet made another splash with his op-ed in The New York Times , saying it’s just not right that he, a billionaire, pays 17 percent in taxes when his secretary and receptionist pay more,” ABC’s George Stephanopoulos told Trump. “Isn’t he right about that?” “There’s many different views on that,” Trump replied. “And I can also tell you that a lot of people will go elsewhere to do business if you start taxing them.” “But 17 percent isn’t much for a billionaire,” Stephanopolous noted. “But you’re going to have a mass exodus of business out of this country when you start taxing too high,” Trump explained. “But if you go back to certain companies, Exxon Mobil, the oil companies, for us to be subsidizing oil companies is absolutely insane.” “Well it sounds like this is where you part company with the tea party and many in the House. You would be willing to close those loopholes on the oil company as part of a deficit [reduction plan],” the ABC host remarked. “Oh, absolutely. I think the oil companies — and I’m a big tea party fan, and the tea party loves me and I get great polls in the tea party… I think when explained to the tea party, I can’t imagine anybody’s going to stick up for Exxon Mobil or some of these big oil companies that are making a fortune and paying relatively little in tax. And I think we should be taxing,” Trump answered. “As part of a deficit reduction package, would you be willing the pay, assume for a second you pay Warren Buffet’s rate, 17 percent. Would you be willing to pay 25 percent instead of 17 percent?” Stephanopolous pressed. “See, I would be willing to, George, but a lot of people wouldn’t be,” Trump admitted. “A lot of people would leave the country. I’m talking about big people, job-producing people. Would I be willing? Yeah, I’d be willing. I’d put country first… A lot of people will say, ‘No thank you, I’m going to Switzerland. I’m going to Germany. I’m going to here, I’m going to there.’” “It’s very unpatriotic. They’re not patriotic. In many cases, they’re not patriotic. They’re business machines.”
Continue reading …UK development secretary warns 400,000 children could die in Somalia | Mark Tran
August 17, 2011 No Comment
On a visit to Somalia, Andrew Mitchell announces £25m extra UK aid and issues grim warning on impact of famine and conflict Britain’s international development secretary on Wednesday warned that up to 400,000 children could die through starvation if urgent action is not taken to help Somalia and its neighbours in the Horn of Africa. Andrew Mitchell’s grim warning came as he saw the devastating impact of famine and conflict on the country during a visit to a feeding centre and a camp for internally displaced people in the Somali capital, Mogadishu. “I came to Mogadishu today to see first-hand how Britain can best help people that have been hit by this devastating famine,” said Mitchell, the first British minister to visit Mogadishu in 18 years. “The stark fact is that in southern Somalia the situation is deteriorating by the day. We could face deaths on a similar scale to those seen in 1991-92 if we do not act urgently now. This is a race against time. Evidence of malnutrition is not just in the camps and feeding centres but on every street corner.” As Mitchell visited Mogadishu, Britain announced an extra £25m ($41m) in emergency aid for Somalia. The new package will go through Unicef, allowing the UN organisation for children to double the number of children it is reaching in its supplementary programme. Somalia faces a severe humanitarian crisis and the worst food security crisis in Africa since its famine 20 years ago. At least 3.7 million people – about half of Somalia’s population – need food, and around 3.2 million people are in extreme need of immediate, lifesaving aid because of drought and years of conflict. In neighbouring Ethiopia, the UN refugee agency is reporting that 10 Somali children under the age of five are dying every day of hunger-related causes in Kobe refugee camp. The Department for International Development (DfID) said its £25m children’s package will provide up to 192,000 people with two months of supplementary rations, and supplies to vaccinate at least 800,000 children against measles, plus 300,000 with polio vaccines, vitamin A and deworming. Mitchell urged other countries to step up their aid effort as the UN warns that more regions of Somalia will be hit by famine in the coming months. Relief agencies estimate $2.48bn is required across the Horn. So far, $1.32bn has been raised – just over 50%. The UK, which helped sound the alarm by announcing aid to Ethiopia last month, has been lobbying the international community to send aid to the region . “Other countries must also maintain and increase their support at this crucial stage,” said Mitchell. “Or we risk seeing a whole generation of people decimated by starvation and disease – and further instability across the region.” The UK government has given £119m towards the UN appeal for east Africa. France has given £25m, Germany £25m and Italy just £3m. The African Union has so far pledged only $500,000 for the aid effort, and most key governments have pledged even less or nothing at all. Meanwhile, the Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC) countries pledged $350m in aid for Somalia at an emergency summit in Istanbul. “All in all we have secured $350m in pledges,” said the OIC secretary general, Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, at the end of the summit. “We hope to raise the commitments to $500m in a very short time.” Earlier, the Turkish prime minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, urged rich Muslim countries to help, saying they bore some responsibility for the crisis for ignoring the poverty in the country. Erdogan told a dozen foreign ministers and other officials that Islam dictates “that you do not go to bed full if your neighbour is hungry. If we had fulfilled our responsibilities, would our brethren nation Somalia be in this situation?” he asked. “This is not only a test for the Somali people, it is a test for all humanity.” Erdogan, is scheduled to go with his family to Somalia on Thursday. Accompanying him will be his foreign minister, Ahmet Davutoglu, who will also take his family. Davutoglu will go on to South Africa and Ethiopia. Few foreign leaders visit Somalia because it is so dangerous, but Erdogan has said it is “impossible for us to be spectators to the human tragedy in Africa”. Al-Shabaab, the Islamist insurgents , have pulled out of the capital, Mogadishu, but security remains precarious with the threat of hit-and-run attacks and suicide bombings. The last leader to visit Somalia was the Ugandan president, Yoweri Museveni, last November. Ugandan troops form the backbone of the African Union peacekeeping force in Somalia, which props up the weak transitional government. Somalia Africa Famine Malnutrition Children Aid Mark Tran guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Working Families to Express Buyer’s Remorse Over Right-Wing Members of Congress
August 17, 2011 No CommentDan Webster’s constituents react to his support for the GOP non-jobs budget. Working America is setting up “Buyer’s Remorse” booths in Minnesota, Colorado, Florida, Michigan and New Mexico to collect “return” ballots from voters who feel betrayed by their representatives who refused to pursue legislation to create jobs. During the August recess, Working America’s protests will focus on Representatives Daniel Webster (FL), Michele Bachmann (MN), Tim Walberg (MI), Mike Coffman (CO) and Governor Susana Martinez (NM). At a time when job creation is the top issue on the public agenda, these lawmakers have ignored the wishes of the people and pursued an extreme ideological agenda while creating few, if any, jobs. These Republicans all campaigned on promises to focus on job creation, but have failed to live up to their promises. Many of the policies they have pursued have made the jobs crisis in the country worse, not better. “Working-class families feel duped by broken election-year promises,” said Karen Nussbaum, Executive Director of Working America. “Elected officials must be held accountable for failing to even attempt to create jobs and strengthen the economy.” Thousands of return ballots have already been gathered in these states and through Working America’s website. Details on each event are in the events section of Working America’s Facebook page . Events can be followed on Twitter with the hashtag #buyersremorse. Working America is an affiliate organization of the AFL-CIO that organizes workers where unions don’t exist. Their goal is to give workers the tools they need to fight for their own economic interests.
Continue reading …CNN's Jessica Yellin used a recent CNN poll Tuesday to give credence to the White House spin that President Obama is the victim of a bad economy he inherited from Bush. What Yellin failed to report was another CNN poll showing that Americans almost two-to-one disapprove of Obama's handling of the economy. Yellin, on Tuesday's The Situation Room, touted a July 25 CNN poll showing that 57 percent of Americans believe Bush and the Republicans are more to blame than Obama and the Democrats for the current economic troubles. She added that the Obama White House could credibly use that poll result to deflect blame toward President Bush for the poor economy. [Video below the break.] “So it's actually connecting with the American public to say that, you know, when the President says that he is ultimately responsible for fixing it, but he didn't cause the problem – it's a message that seems to be working for him,” Yellin said of Obama. “And so they're continuing to try to use it to dig him out of some of his low favorable ratings when it comes to the economy right now,” Yellin said of the White House. She did acknowledge that the President has low economic approval ratings, but did not mention the specific poll finding. An August 8 CNN poll reports that 64 percent of Americans disapprove of President Obama's handling of the economy. Also, Yellin pulled from only a half sample in her reporting. The July 25 question about who was to blame for the economic troubles had two versions with two half samples. The other version showed more Americans by a slight margin blaming the Democrats for the economy. A transcript of the segment, which aired on August 17 at 6:39 p.m. EDT, is as follows: WOLF BLITZER: David, the President is in a tough spot, I should say. It sounds like he admits he is responsible, but doesn't want to take – doesn't want to receive the blame for the slow recovery. What's your take? DAVID GERGEN, CNN senior political analyst: Well he's been very, very deft, I would have to say. And sort of whenever these kind of subjects come up, he does – sure shoves the blame in a different direction. And he said basically that we had a lot of headwinds that came out of Japan and so forth. But he also made it clear he thought that the Republicans — and again to go back to Jessica's point – he sort of camouflages it sometimes. He talks about Congress, but you know what he is really saying is the Republicans have caused this downgrade. So, he – you know, a lot of people find that disingenuous, that it is not really a serious conversation, but look, it is what got us – he's come a long way on those kind of arguments in the past. So, I guess the White House feels they're going to keep pushing it. BLITZER: You know Jessica, we also heard the President say he has got a new jobs proposal he's going to release in September. You know, he wouldn't tell me what's in it. And I asked him, you heard me ask him what's taking so long. We have had a jobs crisis in the United States for two-and-a-half-plus years. Longer than that, I should say. But what are we hearing about this new proposal? Do we have any idea where it's going to take the U.S.? JESSICA YELLIN, CNN chief White House correspondent: Well, they're working on it. There are a lot of potential elements of it that could involve different kinds of payroll tax credit possibilities, and different kind of policies that have been floating out there for a while, Wolf. But what we know he'll do is put out a jobs, like a big jobs package that has a lot of these different policies together, into one comprehensive plan that he;ll release after Labor Day vacation. He will also, in addition that, put out a proposal what he believes and
Continue reading …
Hezbollah suspects can be linked to phones used to plot killing of former Lebanese leader Rafiq Hariri, UN tribunal says Mobile phones used by the assassins of the former Lebanese leader Rafiq Hariri mapped their movements as they tracked him around Beirut for more than a year, then eventually betrayed their identities, according to a United Nations tribunal established to investigate the killing. A prosecution indictment , which has charged four members of Hezbollah for conspiring to kill Hariri, alleges the phones were used for different phases of the complex plot and can conclusively be linked to each of the accused. The indictment was unsealed on Wednesday morning, more than six years after Hariri was killed by a two-and-a-half-tonne car bomb on the Beirut waterfront and almost two months after it was handed to the Lebanese authorities by the tribunal, based in The Hague. It focuses heavily on networks of phones that investigators believe were intended to be used only to plot the assassination. Five networks were identified and hundreds of calls made by the numbers linked to them have been traced to cell towers near where Hariri was at the time. The 47-page indictment does not explicitly state how any of the accused, Mustafa Badreddine, Salim Ayyash, Assad Sabra, or Hussein Oneissi, were linked to the networks, but implies that one or more may have used a covert phone to call a number that they were known to use privately. Investigators are believed to have put together their case from one or more such lapse. The indictment also suggests that documentary evidence and witness statements helped corroborate what it concedes is a largely circumstantial case. Badreddine, who is one of Hezbollah’s most senior figures, is accused of being the controller of the group, while Ayyash is alleged to have carried out the operation. Both are brothers in law of a former overall military commander, Imad Mugniyeh, who was killed by a car bomb in Damascus in 2008. Sabra and Oneissi are accused of orchestrating a false claim of responsibility in the hours following the blast on 14 February 2005 that killed Hariri. Oneissi is accused of recruiting a 22-year-old Palestinian, Abu Adass, from al-Houry mosque in west Beirut who would be used to make a videotaped false claim of responsibility. Adass vanished on 16 January 2005, a month before Hariri was killed. Hariri’s assassination polarised an already brittle Lebanese state and it is still dealing with the repercussions. The allegations of Hezbollah’s involvement, first raised in 2009, inflamed sectarian tensions between Hariri’s largely Sunni Muslim support base and Hezbollah’s Shia Islamic backers. Hezbollah’s secretary general, Hassan Nasrallah, has mounted a strident campaign to discredit the investigation, pointing to a string of espionage arrests in Lebanon, including several of technicians in mobile phone carriers, which he claims allowed Israel to manipulate call data records. Lebanon’s court of public opinion remains divided along sectarian lines about the merits of the investigation. Hariri’s son, Saad Hariri, who was ousted by the Hezbollah-led opposition as prime minister in January, has insisted that Nasrallah hand over the four accused and allow a trial to be held. He has refused to do so and Lebanese authorities could not locate the men during the month the tribunal gave them to do so after it handed over the indictment on June 30. Saad Hariri said on Wednesday: “Today, the international justice has decided to reveal an important part of the proofs and facts related to the terrorist assassination crime, which took the life of one of the important symbols of moderation, nationalism, integrity and success in Lebanon and the Arab world. “What is required of Hezbollah’s leadership is simply to announce their disengagement with the accused.” Nasrallah is expected to make a further television address rebutting the detail in the indictment, however Hezbollah MPs in the Lebanese parliament have said privately that they believe their leader has done enough to convince supporters that the group has been the target of a conspiracy. The content of the indictment is unlikely to satisfy those closest to Hariri who have argued ever since his death that those who ordered his killing must be investigated with the same rigour as those alleged to have carried out the plot. The assassination took place when Hariri was at loggerheads with the Syrian leader, Bashar al-Assad, over Assad’s demand that the term of the Syrian-anointed Lebanese president, Emile Lahoud, be extended. The indictment does not address the motive for the killing. A trial in absentia is likely to be held in The Hague later this year, or early in 2012. Lebanon Middle East Martin Chulov guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …enlarge As the New York Times reported Sunday, within the Obama White House a fierce debate is raging about what to do next about jobs and the economy . But on the same day Americans learned advisers David Plouffe and Bill Daley are pushing President Obama to put forward only proposals which can pass Congress as part of his continuing quixotic quest for the political center , the Times’ Sheryl Gay Stolberg became the latest to document that it no longer exists . Which is one more reason why President Obama not only must aggressively promote the job creation programs America are so desperate for. He should take a page from the GOP playbook while doing so. After all, the same Republicans who claimed the economy was the party’s ” number one priority ” immediately pushed draconian anti-abortion restrictions, a stillborn repeal of the health care reform law and a disastrous balanced budget amendment they knew would never become law . It’s time for Barack Obama to start making Republicans offers they can’t refuse. And if they do, they’ll be on record for having said no to the economic recovery measures the American people so badly need. 1. The States’ Rights Act. Republicans claim to love states’ rights. Among them should be the right to get help from Washington to limit the cataclysmic budget shortfalls and layoffs now gripping cash-strapped state and local governments. The States’ Rights Act would do just that. After all, state and local governments which shed almost 500,000 jobs since 2009 lost 39,000 more in June and are forecast to hemorrhage 110,000 more in the third quarter . With tax revenues only now beginning to approach pre-recession levels and federal stimulus funding evaporating, 42 states face budget shortfalls totaling $175 billion over the next two and a half years . They have been, and continue to be, the anti-stimulus . So here is a proposal to rescue the states and protect the fragile American economy, all with only a small impact on the federal government’s long-term debt. Establish a $200 billion, two-year federal fund providing loans to those states desiring them to prevent further layoffs and to help pay for the rising, recession-induced costs of Medicaid, unemployment and other essential services. These no-or-low interest loans could be paid back over 10 years. During the debate over the stimulus program in early 2009, Senate Republican Minority Leader Mitch McConnell proposed: “If the money were lent rather than just granted, states would, I think, spend it wisely and the states that didn’t need it at all wouldn’t take any.” Now would be a good time to take him up on his offer. 2. The Ronald Reagan Debt Reduction Silver Anniversary Act. Economic recovery programs cost money. To offset their long-term budgetary impact, Democrats and Republicans alike can turn to Ronald Reagan for guidance . Ronald Reagan tripled the national debt, but his draining of the Treasury could have been much worse. Recognizing the devastating impact of his massive 1981 supply-side tax cuts, Reagan subsequently raised taxes seven of his eight years in office, 11 times in all. The most remembered came in 1986, with the passage of a major tax overhaul which eliminated scores of loopholes for individual and business alike. To honor the 25th anniversary of the Tax Reform Act of 1986 , President Obama should propose and Congress should pass the Ronald Reagan Debt Reduction Silver Anniversary Act. By wiping out a wide range loopholes and subsidies, resetting the estate tax to 45 percent while returning the top income and capital gains tax to their 2000 levels starting in 2013, this tribute to the Gipper could erase at least $1 trillion of debt over the following decade. 3. The Ayn Rand Payroll Tax Holiday Act. As part of last year’s $800 billion package extending the Bush tax cuts for two more years, Congress passed a one-year, two percent cut in the payroll taxes paid by virtually every working American. But that incentive set to expire at the end of December, one which could save a family earning $50,000 around $1,000. So President Obama should act to right away to continue for two more years. But that payroll tax holiday costs the Treasury $120 billion a year. To make sure the next generation of Medicare and Social Security recipients can count on the same kinds of benefits that Ayn Rand did and Paul Ryan does, President Obama and Republican leaders should raise the income cap on payroll taxes from $106,800 to $250,000 a year. That’s a small price to pay for Going Galt . 4. The John McCain Home Loan Responsibility Act. With banks set to foreclose on as many as 900,000 homes this year, the moribund U.S. housing market remains a major drag on the economic recovery. Last week, John McCain offered the rough outlines of a solution: “The reality is that the housing market is what triggered this crisis, and it’s going to be the housing market that recovers. And that means to me, go out and buy up people’s mortgages as we did during the Great Depression, and give them a mortgage that they can afford the payments to make, and then we will begin to come out of this problem.” That’s a far cry from March 2008 , when presidential candidate John McCain fretted about moral hazard and declared, “I have always been committed to the principle that it is not the duty of government to bail out and reward those who act irresponsibly, whether they are big banks or small borrowers.” Pilot programs to keep Americans in their homes by getting banks to accept mortgage “cram downs” could be scaled up with, say, a $25 billion federal fund. Given his own experience, tea party freshman Rep. Tom Graves (R-GA) should be a solid supporter. After all, he just claimed that his own bank should have known he couldn’t pay back a $2.2 million loan. 5. The Dwight Eisenhower and Ted Stevens Memorial Infrastructure Fund. If ever there was a time for a massive public works program, this is it. With unemployment stuck at 9 percent and an estimated $3 trillion backlog in projects to repair America’s bridges, highways, transit systems, water systems and sewerage treatment plants, President Obama and Congress should embark on a five year, $250 billion infrastructure overhaul. These investments in an Infrastructure Bank and Surface Transportation Upgrades would not only be a fitting tribute to President Eisenhower’s innovative interstate highway system. The late Alaska Senator Ted Stevens may have been wrong about the Internet, but tunnels, water pipes and sewer systems are a “series of tubes.” (This piece also appears at Perrspectives .)
Continue reading …
enlarge Credit: PR Watch There have been buzzings about a potential Senate run by Elizabeth Warren for some time – but things kicked in high gear Tuesday afternoon when EMILY’s List Director Stephanie Schriock tweeted she’d meet with Warren in Massachusetts the day previous. Roll Call also reported Warren was “wooing democrats at Boston house parties.” Today the superhero of the economically disenfranchised announced she is filing paperwork to open an exploratory committee for the U.S. Senate race against Scott Brown who replaced Ted Kennedy after his death. Scott Brown has been no friend to regular Americans. When it comes to big banks on Wall Street, Brown refused to vote for a tax on banks and hedge funds with over $50 billion in assets. When everyday families can’t make ends meet, surely Brown could support them over companies with over $50 BILLION in the bank?! But no. Americans took the hit once again because Brown refuses to put people first. In a piece by Yves Smith on Naked Capitalism Elizabeth Warren becomes the target of a fantasy Presidential run, but the same benefits of her unwinable race against President Obama can also be true as a viable challenger to Scott Walker. Warren has been branded as a scourge of banks. Even though it should be common sense that selling exploding toasters is bad business, the fact that she talks repeatedly and persuasively about the need for rules to have markets work well makes her a threat to much of Corporate America. Note that their heated opposition to the idea of fair play reveals the importance of treating customers badly, looting the official coffers, or both to their business models. So why should she bother? She has become a forceful, self appointed advocate for middle class American families. She has thrown her weight behind this objective since she worked on the Harvard Bankruptcy Project more than a decade ago (it served as the basis for her and her daughter’s book The Two Income Trap). Whether you agree with the wisdom of her choice or not, that was what motivated her to take the position as adviser to the Treasury and President and start up the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and suffer an aggressive hazing in Congress and in the media by banking industry shills operating through the Republican party. So she is willing to take pain and less than certain bets to advance her goals (we thought she was never going to be head of the new agency. . . ” She is a tireless advocate for people like us at a time when so many feel Washington chooses corporate welfare over the economic interests of everyday Americans. While many prefer Warren to remain on the outside of the political elite, throwing stones alone is rarely as powerful as a U.S. Senator fighting for our issues. As a Senator she would have the weight of her office to not only speak to Americans directly and honestly about what is wrong with our economic instability, but she could propose legislation, conduct hearings, and demand accountability with Massachusetts voters – indeed all of us – behind her. Good luck Elizabeth!
Continue reading …
enlarge Credit: PR Watch There have been buzzings about a potential Senate run by Elizabeth Warren for some time – but things kicked in high gear Tuesday afternoon when EMILY’s List Director Stephanie Schriock tweeted she’d meet with Warren in Massachusetts the day previous. Roll Call also reported Warren was “wooing democrats at Boston house parties.” Today the superhero of the economically disenfranchised announced she is filing paperwork to open an exploratory committee for the U.S. Senate race against Scott Brown who replaced Ted Kennedy after his death. Scott Brown has been no friend to regular Americans. When it comes to big banks on Wall Street, Brown refused to vote for a tax on banks and hedge funds with over $50 billion in assets. When everyday families can’t make ends meet, surely Brown could support them over companies with over $50 BILLION in the bank?! But no. Americans took the hit once again because Brown refuses to put people first. In a piece by Yves Smith on Naked Capitalism Elizabeth Warren becomes the target of a fantasy Presidential run, but the same benefits of her unwinable race against President Obama can also be true as a viable challenger to Scott Walker. Warren has been branded as a scourge of banks. Even though it should be common sense that selling exploding toasters is bad business, the fact that she talks repeatedly and persuasively about the need for rules to have markets work well makes her a threat to much of Corporate America. Note that their heated opposition to the idea of fair play reveals the importance of treating customers badly, looting the official coffers, or both to their business models. So why should she bother? She has become a forceful, self appointed advocate for middle class American families. She has thrown her weight behind this objective since she worked on the Harvard Bankruptcy Project more than a decade ago (it served as the basis for her and her daughter’s book The Two Income Trap). Whether you agree with the wisdom of her choice or not, that was what motivated her to take the position as adviser to the Treasury and President and start up the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and suffer an aggressive hazing in Congress and in the media by banking industry shills operating through the Republican party. So she is willing to take pain and less than certain bets to advance her goals (we thought she was never going to be head of the new agency. . . ” She is a tireless advocate for people like us at a time when so many feel Washington chooses corporate welfare over the economic interests of everyday Americans. While many prefer Warren to remain on the outside of the political elite, throwing stones alone is rarely as powerful as a U.S. Senator fighting for our issues. As a Senator she would have the weight of her office to not only speak to Americans directly and honestly about what is wrong with our economic instability, but she could propose legislation, conduct hearings, and demand accountability with Massachusetts voters – indeed all of us – behind her. Good luck Elizabeth!
Continue reading …George Stephanopoulos Scolds Companies Who Relocate Overseas Because of High Taxes: ‘Unpatriotic’
August 17, 2011 No CommentAccording to Good Morning America's George Stephanopoulos, companies that go overseas as a result of high taxes in America are ” unpatriotic .” The ABC host, who has repeatedly lobbied for higher taxes throughout his journalistic career, endorsed Warren Buffett's call for the rich to pay a higher percentage in taxes. Talking to Donald Trump, Stephanopoulos cajoled, “Warren Buffett made another splash, saying it's not right, he a billionaire, pays 17 percent in taxes when his secretaries and receptionists pay more. Isn't he right about that?” (According to columnist Cal Thomas , Buffett's efforts would make little difference.) Trump insisted that he would be willing to pay higher taxes in order to stay in America, but many of his colleagues wouldn't. The GMA anchor attacked, ” But that's unpatriotic, isn't it? ” On October 18, 2006 , Stephanopoulos grilled then-President Bush over comments he made about the Democratic plans to pull troops from Iraq: “So you don't think that's questioning their patriotism when you say that?” Stephanopoulos, a former Democratic operative, touts most liberal talking points, but fighting for higher and higher taxes has been one of his more constant themes. Some examples from the MRC's Profile in Bias : “You also have said that we have to have bold ideas for energy independence, and your theme is ‘courage to change.’ Just about every expert on energy says the best way to become energy independent is to raise the price of oil and gas, to have a serious energy tax. Why not call for it?…Couldn’t we become independent much more quickly if we had the kind of energy tax you see in Europe?” — ABC’s George Stephanopoulos to Democratic presidential candidate Tom Vilsack on This Week, December 3, 2006. “I mean, if the deficit continued to grow, it’s not responsible to say you’re never going to raise taxes….Ronald Reagan also increased taxes….So it’s, ‘Read my lips,’ you’re never going to vote to raise taxes?” — George Stephanopoulos to conservative Stephen Laffey, who was challenging liberal Lincoln Chafee in Rhode Island’s GOP Senate primary, ABC’s This Week, September 3, 2006. George Stephanopoulos: “You say roll back the tax cuts for the wealthy. He [President Bush] says no tax increase of any kind. We’re spending $5 billion a month in Iraq, probably $200 billion on Katrina. Something’s got to give.” Former President Bill Clinton: “Well, that’s what I think.” — ABC’s This Week, September 18, 2005. “So what would you do about those deficits if you were Treasury Secretary today? What taxes would you raise?” – ABC’s George Stephanopoulos to former Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin on This Week, November 16, 2003. A partial transcript of the August 17 interview, which aired at 7:05am EDT, follows: GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: Okay, Jake. We've already seen some of that on the bus trip. Now to my exclusive interview with Donald Trump. He's been keeping a lower profile since bowing out of the presidential race a few months back, but Trump is taking meetings with the GOP field. The website Should Trump Run is still going strong and the Tea Party favorite is tougher than ever on President Obama. And as you'll see, he's also quite taken with the newest candidate in the race, Texas Governor Rick Perry. DONALD TRUMP: I think he's a very impressive guy with a very good record so it'll be interesting to see how he does under the spotlight. I think he's going to do well. STEPHANOPOULOS: He already got a reputation from shooting from the hip that Ben Bernanke if he went for a quantitative easing number three, printing more money- RICK PERRY: Printing more money to play politics at this particular time in American history is almost treacherous or treasonous. STEPHANOPOULOS: Do you agree with that? TRUMP: Well, he's using an expression. I mean, I saw that and- STEPHANOPOULOS: Pretty harsh expression. TRUMP: Everyone made such a big deal. It's an expression. STEPHANOPOULOS: You don't believe that this in some way shows he's not ready? TRUMP: Oh, I think he's very ready. Hey, he's like everybody else in this country we're all frustrated, so I think he has the right to show some emotion. STEPHANOPOULOS: And that headline in Texas, more than a third of the jobs created in the entire country. TRUMP: It's a great headline. STEPHANOPOULOS: It's a great headline. But what about beneath it? Some people look at the record and say, “It's due to population growth. These are mostly low wage jobs. This is not a model for America.” TRUMP: I think at this point America would accept anything in terms of job, whether it's great jobs or okay jobs. We need jobs. We're losing jobs to China, to India, so many other countries. STEPHANOPOULOS: How about Mitt Romney? TRUMP: Well, I don't know him. And, you know, it's interesting. Sarah Palin called. I have a lot of respect for her. Michele Bachmann called. She was here last week. The only one I really don't know is Mitt Romney. STEPHANOPOULOS: He touts a background similar to yours. He says his 25 years in business is what sets him apart and that's what America needs right now. TRUMP: Well, I think that's a good point, but if you look at his record as governor, it wasn't totally stellar. His job production was not great. In fact, it was the third worst in the nation. There are some pretty negative things with respect to Mitt Romney which, frankly, he's going to have to overcome. STEPHANOPOULOS: And what do you make of Michele Bachmann? Is she electable? TRUMP: She is a great, wonderful woman. I got to know her a couple of weeks ago and she is just energetic, very smart, I think she is badly treated by the press, much as Sarah Palin is in my opinion. STEPHANOPOULOS: The Newsweek cover? TRUMP: I thought the Newsweek cover was a disgrace. STEPHANOPOULOS: Let's talk about taxes. Warren Buffett made another splash, saying it's not right, he a billionaire, pays 17 percent in taxes when his secretaries and receptionists pay more. Isn't he right about that? TRUMP: There's many different views on that and I can also tell you that a lot of people will go elsewhere to do business if you start taxing. STEPHANOPOULOS: But, 17 percent isn't much for a billionaire. TRUMP: Well, I deal with Wall Street all the time. You're going to have a mass exodus. But, if you go back to certain companies, for us to be subsidizing oil companies is absolutely insane. And, frankly, the oil companies really facilitate OPEC. The worst abuser we have is OPEC. Oil should be selling at $25 to $30 a barrel. George, the biggest problem we have, every time this economy gets a little bit of a head of steam they raise the oil prices.
Continue reading …