Hasn’t America been Bain Capitalized enough?
Paul Krugman approves of the Obama campaign’s decision to continue hammering Mitt Romney on his history with Bain Capital and his refusal to release any tax returns prior to 2010. He says,
“…this election is, in substantive terms, about the rich versus the rest, and it would be doing voters a disservice to pretend otherwise.
“[...] The print media do offer analysis pieces — but these pieces, out of a desire to seem “balanced,” all too often simply repeat the he-said-she-said of political speeches. Trust me: you will see very few news analyses saying that Mr. Romney proposes huge tax cuts for the rich, with no plausible offset other than big benefit cuts for everyone else — even though this is the simple truth. Instead, you will see pieces reporting that “Democrats say” that this is what Mr. Romney proposes, matched with dueling quotes from Republican sources.
“So how can the Obama campaign cut through this political and media fog? By talking about Mr. Romney’s personal history, and the way that history resonates with the realities of his pro-rich, anti-middle-class policy proposals.
“Thus the entirely true charge that Mr. Romney wants to slash historically low tax rates on the rich even further dovetails perfectly with his own record of extraordinary tax avoidance — so extraordinary that he’s evidently afraid to let voters see his tax returns from before 2010. The equally true charge that he’s pushing policies that would benefit the rich at the expense of ordinary working Americans meshes with Bain’s record of earning big profits even when workers suffered — a record so stark that Mr. Romney is attempting to distance himself from part of it by insisting that he had nothing to do with Bain’s operations after 1999, even though the company continued to list him as C.E.O. and sole owner until 2002. And so on.
“The point is that talking about Mr. Romney’s personal history isn’t a diversion from substantive policy discussion. On the contrary, in a political and media environment strongly biased against substance, talking about Bain and offshore accounts is the only way to bring the real policy issues into focus. And we should applaud, not condemn, the Obama campaign for standing up to the tut-tutters.”
“Oh, I think people in my party just say, ‘Look, this is a non-issue, just release the returns and it will all go away.’ My experience is that the Democratic Party these days has approached taxes in a very different way than in the past,” Romney told WPXI, an NBC Affiliate in Pittsburgh. “Their opposition people look for anything they can find to distort, to twist, and to try and make negative, and I want to make this a campaign about the economy and creating jobs. And they want to make this campaign about attacking people and diverting attention from our job picture in this country.” — Mitt Romney Dismisses Tax Return Disclosure Calls From Republicans
Tax Havens. Offshore accounts. Carried Interest. Mitt Romney has used every trick in the book. Romney admits that over the last two years he’s paid less than 15% in taxes on $43 million in income. Makes you wonder if some years he paid any taxes at all.
We don’t know because Romney has released just one full year of his tax returns. And won’t release anything before 2010.
Mitt Romney: You know what, I’ve put out as much as we’re gonna put out.
What is Mitt Romney hiding?
Politics aside, seriously, what’s your choice? For 99% of us, it’s a pretty simple answer.
Mitt Romney’s tax plan rewards companies that outsource jobs to other countries and makes it easier for them to avoid taxes.
Think Progress: ”Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s plan to overhaul the American corporate tax code would “exacerbate the worst features of our current tax system” by giving corporations more than $1 trillion in tax breaks and providing an incentive to outsource jobs and stash profits overseas, according to Seth Hanlon, the director of fiscal reform at the Center for American Progress Action Fund.
“While the United States already provides an incentive for companies to store profits in offshore tax havens instead of investing those profits at home, Romney’s plan to shift the U.S. to a territorial tax system would make the situation even worse, Hanlon wrote in a report published today: “Gov. Romney’s proposed exemption for foreign profits would exacerbate the worst features of our current tax system. It would:
“– Enhance the tax code’s rewards for moving jobs and investments overseas
“– Provide a gratuitous windfall to some of the very companies that have already shifted jobs and profits overseas
“– Further invite the offshore tax haven abuse that deprives the U.S. Treasury of tens of billions of dollars in revenue every year”
President Obama’s tax plan provides income tax credits for companies that bring their operations back to America and a minimum tax on foreign earnings.
barackobama.com: “President Obama’s plan reduces the incentive to move operations overseas, and instead, creates a new 20 percent income tax credit that helps companies cover their moving expenses and bring their operations back to the United States. And to create a more level playing field for American businesses, the President has proposed a minimum tax on foreign earnings, which will reduce incentives for moving profits offshore.
“The choice between President Obama and Mitt Romney is the choice between two fundamentally different economic visions: President Obama would reward companies for creating jobs in America, and Romney would reward companies for creating jobs in other countries. The choice is that stark and that clear.”
“By the end of the work day I’m exhausted and dirty…Back at the Labor Ready office, I have to wait nearly 30 minutes to receive my check. The job paid $8 an hour—minimum wage. For five hours of labor, I get $37.34 after taxes. I am not paid, however, for the four hours on call, or the time spent in transit to and from the job site, or waiting to get paid. None of this meets the legal definition of wage theft, but it sure feels like it.”
“Everyone Only Wants Temps,” in which our reporter signs up with this economy’s employer of last resort.
“But there are a lot of nervous Republicans outside the campaign who don’t think that’s true. And most of those nervous Republicans would be even more nervous if they knew what Chicago was still, patiently, sitting on.” — Mark Halperin | TIME.com
lycanpedia: A nudge and a wink from Halperin who lauds the Obama machine for its bulldozing of Romney on Bain and taxes.
McCain wants us to know that when he said earlier today that he chose Palin “because we thought that Sarah Palin was the better candidate. Why did we not take [Tim] Pawlenty, why did we not take any of the other 10 other people. Why didn’t I? Because we had a better candidate, the same way with all the others. … Come on, why? That’s a stupid question.”
He believes those words, of his, were taken “out of context.” So McCain felt the need to add more words, to qualify or temper the earlier words:
“Some in the media have chosen to take my answer today, in response to the question of why I did not select Governor Romney as my vice presidential nominee, out of context. I selected Sarah Palin because she was the best fit for my campaign, and my decision had nothing to do with the bogus tax return attacks currently being waged by the Obama campaign. I have the highest respect for Governor Romney and his record of public service, and he will make an outstanding president.”
So we went from “better candidate” to “best fit for my campaign” in a few short hours. That’s what you call Straight Talk!