————————————-WHAT THE REPUBLICAN PARTY STANDS FOR TODAY
In case it wasn’t already clear that last week’s controversy over stay at home moms was entirely manufactured, this should put the question to bed. [Mitt Romney] told a New Hampshire audience: “I wanted to increase the work requirement,” said Romney. “I said, for instance, that even if you have a child 2 years of age, you need to go to work. And people said, ‘Well that’s heartless.’ And I said, ‘No, no, I’m willing to spend more giving day care to allow those parents to go back to work. It’ll cost the state more providing that daycare, but I want the individuals to have the dignity of work.” [ThinkProgress]
Mitt Romney and Ann: the students “struggling” so much that they had to sell stock — Her idea of her and Mitt facing “not easy years,” having “no income,” “living on the edge” as “struggling students,” was that the couple had had to face college with only sale of stock to sustain them. By Ann’s own account, the stock amounted to “a few thousand” dollars when bought, but it had gone up by a factor of sixteen. So let’s conservatively say that they got through five years as students—neither one of them working—only by “chipping away at” assets of $60,000 in 1969 dollars (about $377,000 today). Look. I don’t begrudge Romney’s having had his college tuition and living expenses paid for with family money. Mine were too. My background, though not as fancy as Mitt or Ann Romney’s, was privileged enough. But the guy should just come out and admit it: “I was a child of privilege and have my parents’ wealth to thank for my education. That said, I worked very very hard in business, and the vast majority of my fortune I earned myself.” But there is of course a reason he can’t say that: such a statement is customarily followed by an expression of gratitude and a willingness to give something back to society. And gratitude and a willingness to give something back are precisely what Romney lacks—in common with the party he’s aspiring to represent. [via: yobaba]
While some in media don’t even know what the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act is, some Republicans remain actively hostile towards it. Former Republican congressman Pete Hoekstra, who is now running to unseat Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.), weighed in on the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act on Thursday, saying the law was a “nuisance” that shouldn’t be in place. [...] “Will, you know, will repealing it be a priority? If you came back and said, you know, that’s really the thing that’s hurting my business the most. My guess is there are other things that we can do that have a higher priority in terms of what I, what I believe might need to be done. I think you know we need to create — that thing is a nuisance. It shouldn’t be the law,” replied Hoekstra. The Fair Pay Act may seem obvious and noncontroversial, but let’s not forget that when the bill came to the House floor in 2009, 172 out of 175 House Republicans rejected it. And one of them, Hoekstra, wants to go to the Senate next year to help repeal this “nuisance.” Incidentally, Mitt Romney, who doesn’t want to say whether he supports the Ledbetter law or not, is quite friendly with Pete Hoekstra. [Maddow Blog]
———————————————————–——PRESIDENT OBAMA / DEMOCRATS
A video comparing Presidents Obama and Reagan talking about tax loopholes for the wealthy, as compared to the tax rate paid by average Americans:
Bill Moyers: Wall Street’s Massive Freak Out When Asked to Pay Their Fair Share — April 12, 2012 | So what do these big moneyed nabobs have to complain about? Why are they whining about reform? And why are they funneling cash to super PACs aimed at bringing down Barack Obama, who many of them supported four years ago? Because, writes Alec MacGillis in The New Republic — the President wants to raise their taxes. That’s right — while ordinary Americans are taxed at a top rate of 35% on their income, Congress allows hedge fund and private equity tycoons to pay only pay 15% of their compensation. The President wants them to pay more; still at a rate below what you might pay, and for that he’s being accused of – hold onto your combat helmets – “class warfare.” One Wall Street Midas, once an Obama fan, now his foe, told MacGillis that by making the rich a primary target, Obama is “[expletive deleted] on people who are successful.”
DCCC billboards hit Republicans on Ryan budget in 14 states – As House Republicans drive around their districts during the April recess, 14 of them will see billboards attacking them on Medicare and tax cuts for millionaires, courtesy of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC). The billboards will remain up for all of April, and target Republicans facing difficult reelection campaigns. GOP Reps. Charlie Bass (N.H.), Sean Duffy (Wis.) and Steve King (Iowa) are on the list, as are Dan Lungren (Calif.) and Steve Southerland (Fla.). The billboards show a concerned-looking elderly man next to the House member’s name and the phrase “protecting millionaires instead of Medicare.” Voters are directed to a website, www.millionairesovermedicare.com, where a video shows footage of the targeted Republicans. In the video, a banner pops up as each Republican is speaking to say that he “voted to end Medicare.” The fine print sources the 2011 roll call vote for House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan’s (R-Wis.) budget proposal.