Politics Plus

Everywhere we turn, Republicans are putting their racism on display.  Here’s the latest:

Congressional candidate Mike Pompeo issued an apology Thursday to opponent Raj Goyle, saying his campaign accidentally directed Pompeo supporters to an online blog post assailing Goyle’s religion and ethnic heritage.

A Pompeo statement said his campaign office "inadvertently posted a link to a tremendously offensive blog post."

The link was posted to Pompeo’s Facebook page on Wednesday and tweeted to his Twitter followers. Campaign officials deleted the social-networking links when they realized the content of the blog post.

The post referred to Goyle, a U.S.-born citizen of Indian heritage, as "just another ‘turban topper’ we don’t need in Congress or any political office that deals with the U.S. Constitution, Christianity and the United States of America!!!"

The post was written by Bob Pinkstaff of Wichita, a retired Marine gunnery sergeant who claims the country is being invaded by Mexicans and Muslims and that only Christians should hold public office.

Pompeo and Goyle are locked in a close struggle for the 4th District congressional seat being vacated by Rep. Todd Tiahrt, R-Goddard… [emphasis added]

Inserted from <McClatchy DC>

He says it was an accident.  If such things were rare occurrences in Republican circles, I might be inclined to give him to benefit of the doubt, but when virtually every day brings several new examples of Republicans acting on racial bigotry, it has to ge one of two things: a religious dogma or a Party strategy.

The big fight brewing in Washington at the moment is whether or not and for whom to extend the Bush Tax cuts.  The Obama plan calls for extending them for everyone except the top two percent.  Republican plan include extending them for everyone, extending them for the top two percent only, and extending them for nobody, if the rich don’t get them too.  The Obama plan is the best one.  This is why.

This week, the Congressional Joint Committee on Taxation released an analysis of what would happen to the tax code if the Republican proposal to extend all of the Bush tax cuts were adopted. The tax cuts are scheduled to expire at the end of the year, and the Obama administration has proposed renewing only those for the lower- and middle-class.

“You will find Republicans resisting very strongly any bill that allows taxes to be raised on any segment of Americans today,” said Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ), while Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN) has said the House GOP will throw “everything we’ve got” into preserving the tax cuts for the wealthy. And too many Democrats — like Sens. Evan Bayh (D-IN) and Kent Conrad (D-ND) — have been cowed into expressing a willingness to extend the tax cuts temporarily for a year or two.

According to the JCT analysis, extending the cuts for the wealthy — which affect two percent of the population — for just one year will cost $36 billion. Obama’s plan, meanwhile, really focuses the tax increase at the very top of the income scale:

The biggest burden would fall on the 608,000 taxpayers who make between $500,000 and $1 million and the 315,000 who earn more than $1 million; the first group would pay $6.5 billion more, or an average of almost $10,000, and the second group would owe $31 billion more, or almost $100,000 on average, the analysis said.

That may seem like a lot, but even under Obama’s plan, the very rich will be paying less in taxes than they did in 2001, since they would be paying a lower marginal rate on their first $250,000 in income. As the New York Times noted, “taxpayers with income of more than $1 million for 2011 would still receive on average a tax cut of about $6,300 compared with what they would have paid under rates in effect until 2001.” For those earning between $250,000 and $500,000, meanwhile, the increase is “relatively low,” said Roberton Williams, an economist with the Urban Institute. “It’s less than 1 percent.”

So Obama’s plan has taxpayers still paying less than they were at the beginning of the decade, while adding $36 billion less to the deficit than the GOP’s preferred policy outcome… [emphasis original]

Inserted from <Think Progress>

Graphic Credit: Ezra Klien

Rachel Maddow and economist Austin Goolsby discuss the above chart and the tax cuts.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

From what I understand, tax cuts to the wealthiest Americans only generate fifty cents in economic activity for every tax dollar lost to the government.  Those funds would be far more productively invested in infrastructure spending.

Republican claims that ending the tax cuts for the rich will cost US jobs is a lie.  The rich aren’t investing their money in US production.  They are investing it in Wall Street speculation and production in the Asian wage-slave markets.  Republicans want the tax cuts for the rich to continue, because the rich are the only people Republicans truly represent.  They are the party of No Millionaire Left Behind!

Every election, Republicans routinely violate election law and get away with it, because the Republicans on the FEC refuse to vote against fellow Republicans.  When FEC rulings come exclusively against Democrats, Republicans then claim that it proves Democrats are the corrupt party.  Hopefully that may be coming to an end.

It’s about time. I make a point of reviewing FEC filings on a routine basis just to see who is giving what to who. The one thing I’ve learned over the past year is this: When the FEC is asked for an opinion, it will always rule on the side of the Citizens United folks. I have yet to see them give the time of day to voters’ concerns.

CREW feels the same way, evidently. Yesterday they filed suit against the FEC, alleging a practice of summarily dismissing complaints without explanation for the basis of the dismissal. Generally, the dismissals occur because of a deadlock between the three Democrats and the three Republicans on the commission. At least, that’s the case unless it’s a request for an advance opinion of some new and ugly practice by Republican consultants like Alex Castellanos or Carl Forti’s Black Rock Group.)

From the press release:

“The gridlock at the FEC makes the Senate look high-functioning in comparison,” said Ms. Sloan. “The FEC is clearly a broken agency. Instead of ensuring fair elections in which all players follow the rules, too often commissioners refuse to act, and then, refuse to even explain why they failed to act. This leaves Americans in the dark, with no legal remedy. Even worse, candidates can freely break campaign finance laws to gain an edge in a federal election without any fear of repercussions.”

The lawsuit itself (PDF) is quite specific, and addresses a complaint filed by CREW with respect to Rep. Duncan Deport-American-Citizens Hunter’s exploratory bid for a run at the Presidency in 2008.

From the lawsuit:

On March 14, 2007, CREW and Melanie Sloan filed a complaint with the FEC against Peace Through Strength Political Action Committee (“PTS PAC”) and its treasurer, Meredith Kelley, for violations of the FECA. The complaint alleged:

(1) PTS PAC, the political action committee of Rep. Duncan Hunter who was then a candidate for president of the United States, had knowingly received 11 contributions exceeding the FECA’s individual contribution limit for “testing the waters” activities in violation of 2 U.S.C. § 441a(f); (FEC report)

(2) PTS PAC had failed to register as a candidate committee in violation of 2 U.S.C. § 433(a);

(3) PTS PAC had made an excessive in-kind contribution in violation of 2 U.S.C. § 441a(a)(2)(A) and 11 C.F.R. § 110.2(b)(1); and (4) to the extent PTS PAC had failed to report disbursements for certain television advertisements it had violated 11 C.F.R. §§ 104.3(b) and 104.9(a).

What he did:

MANCHESTER, N.H. — Republican presidential candidate Duncan Hunter, a California congressman, has used his political action committee to run New Hampshire television ads introducing himself to voters — in what some specialists say could be a violation of campaign finance laws.

In the ads, Hunter walks beside a huge wire fence and calls for it to be extended along hundreds of miles of the US border with Mexico. He then asks for viewers to "join with me, Duncan Hunter, at Peace Through Strength. Let’s make sure Homeland Security builds the border fence." (Boston.com)

 

Why it’s a big deal:

Hunter claimed his ads were nothing more than "issue ads". Yet the web address at the end of the ad pointed to a Hunter for President website. He used the PAC as a front for a Presidential bid so he could collect the higher PAC limit of $5,000, rather than the $2,300 allowed for individual candidates without identifying the PAC as a committee organized for his Presidential bid. That put him at an unfair advantage over other candidates who were in compliance with the laws.

Remarkably, the FEC’s response, received July 23, 2010 to CREW’s complaint was this:

According to Mr. Shonkwiler, the FEC found reason to believe Peace Through Strength Political Action Committee, Treasurer Meredith G. Kelley, Duncan Hunter, Hunter for President, Inc. and Treasurer Bruce Young violated specified provisions of the FECA and FEC regulations. Mr. Shonkwiler further advised that on June 29, 2010, the FEC determined to take no further action and closed the file in this matter.

Amazing. Yes, the FEC says, we did find that there was a violation of campaign finance laws, but we’re not going to take any action. Instead we’ll just close the file and pretend it never happened… [emphasis original]

Inserted from <Crooks and Liars>

There is no dirty trick to sleazy for Republicans, and that has to stop.  The more I see of CREW, the more I like them.

Almost everywhere I turn, I’m hearing that the Democratic Party has sold out to corporate donors.  Consider this:

…Republicans also attempted to obstruct the Democrats’ financial reform bill which passed last month with the support of just three Senate Republicans. Because of their willingness to always stand on the side of corporations, Republicans are being rewarded by big business. The Financial Times reports on a Center for Responsive Politics (CRP) study:

Wall Street executives are donating nearly 70 per cent of their political contributions to Republican candidates ahead of November’s mid-term elections, representing a significant shift in allegiances across an industry that has in recent history heavily favoured Democrats. […]

Wall Street executives began favouring Republicans over Democrats in December of last year, but the month of June marked the largest gap between donations to the two parties and federal candidates. The shift coincided with the intense debate on Capitol Hill over financial services reform, legislation that was passed in July.

This graph from the CRP shows the percentage of Wall Street dollars flowing to each party… [emphasis original]

Inserted from <Think Progress>

Hey Democratic politicians!  If you think caving-in to corporate criminals is worth it, get some Vaseline, because you’re getting you know what you know where!!