Friday, October 26, 2012

Middle Class Voter Guide 2012- TheMiddleClass.org

Middle Class Voter Guide 2012- TheMiddleClass.org:

'via Blog this'

Condi Rice Pours Cold Water On 'Benghazi-Gate' | ThinkProgress

Condi Rice Pours Cold Water On 'Benghazi-Gate' | ThinkProgress:

Condi Rice Pours Cold Water On ‘Benghazi-Gate’

Former Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice broke with the majority of her party last night on Fox News, as she tried to hit the brakes on the right wing’s politicization of the recent attack in Libya.
Host Greta Van Susteren asked Rice directly and repeatedly about a set of emails uncovered by Reuters. In what has been dubbed “Benghazi-Gate,” the conservative media has jumped on the emails as definitive proof that the Obama administration has been lying about what it knew and when in the aftermath of the Sept. 11 attack on a diplomatic mission in Benghazi. Rice’s response was likely not what Van Susteren expected:
RICE: But when things are unfolding very, very quickly, it’s not always easy to know what is really going on on the ground. And to my mind, the really important questions here are about how information was collected. Did the various agencies really coordinate and share intelligence in the way that we had hoped, with the reforms that were made after 9/11?
So there’s a big picture to be examined here. But we don’t have all of the pieces, and I think it’s easy to try and jump to conclusions about what might have happened here. It’s probably better to let the relevant bodies do their work.
Watch Rice’s full interview here:
Throughout the interview, Rice highlighted the difficulty that comes in a “fog of war” situation, with multiple stories coming in which need to be processed and verified. Her statements strongly align with the evolution of the Obama administration’s understanding of what happened in Benghazi. Rice also joined current Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in dismissing the big picture importance of the emails from the U.S. Embassy in Tripoli, as a small portion of the overall communication between the mission and the State Department.
With her reasoned response, Rice stands apart from other former Bush administration officials, including former United Nations Ambassador John Bolton and former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. Both Rumsfeld and Bolton have repeatedly insisted that the Obama administration has performed a cover-up of the events in Benghazi.

'via Blog this'

Voluntary Austerity: All Pain, No Gain

Voluntary Austerity: All Pain, No Gain:

Voluntary Austerity: All Pain, No Gain

Thursday, 25 October 2012 14:30By Paul Krugman, Krugman & Co. | Op-Ed
The Banks.(Credit: CartoonArts International / The New York Times Syndicate)Back in 2009, when there was (briefly) a policy consensus in favor of active fiscal policy to fight the economic slump, there were many warnings to the effect that we must not repeat the infamous mistake of 1937, in which President Franklin D. Roosevelt was persuaded to focus on balancing the budget while the economy was still weak, terminating the recovery and sending the United States into the second leg of the Great Depression.
And what policy makers proceeded to do was, of course, to repeat the mistake of 1937.
The International Monetary Fund's new World Economic Outlook is, in effect, an extensively documented exercise in hand-wringing over the consequences of this repeat of bad history. Kudos to the Fund for having the courage to say this, which means bucking some powerful players, as well as admitting that its own analysis was flawed.
There is, however, one point that I think is getting skewed in the discussion of the I.M.F.'s new concern over premature austerity. Much of the discussion seems to focus on the question of whether to relax demands on debtor countries — which is certainly a crucial issue for the euro zone. However, the global 1937 that we're now experiencing isn't just about forced austerity in Spain, Greece and other nations. It's also — and I think mainly — about unforced austerity in countries that remain able to borrow very cheaply.
Look at estimates of cyclically adjusted budget deficits from the I.M.F.'s Fiscal Monitor, measured as a percentage of potential gross domestic product, on the chart on this page. I don't think you want to take these numbers as gospel — in Britain's case, at least, there's a very good argument that the I.M.F. is greatly understating potential output and, hence, overstating the structural deficit, and I suspect that this is true to a lesser extent for the United States.
102512-7 graph
But the point is that even cheap-money countries facing no pressure either from the market or from external forces to engage in immediate austerity are nonetheless engaged in sharp fiscal contraction.
This is taking place in an environment in which the private sector is still deleveraging ferociously from the debt binge of the previous decade, so we're creating a situation in which both the private sector and the public sector are trying to slash spending relative to income. And, whaddya know, the world economy is sputtering.
The truly amazing thing is that this calamitous error is not, for the most part, the result of special interests or an unwillingness to make hard choices. On the contrary, it's being driven by Very Serious People who pride themselves on their willingness to make hard choices (which, naturally, involve inflicting pain on other people). In fact, I'd argue that the desire to make hard choices, or at least to be seen as doing so, is the reason these Very Serious People chose to ignore the extensive and, we now know, completely accurate warnings from some economists about what would happen if they gave in to their austerity obsession.
Izabella Kaminska at the Financial Times's Alphaville blog recently wrote that I was feeling a bit "smuggish" about all this. Well, I'm only human. But, truly, this is a terrible thing to behold.
© 2012 The New York Times Company
Truthout has licensed this content. It may not be reproduced by any other source and is not covered by our Creative Commons license.
Paul Krugman joined The New York Times in 1999 as a columnist on the Op-Ed page and continues as a professor of economics and international affairs at Princeton University. He was awarded the Nobel in economic science in 2008. Mr Krugman is the author or editor of 20 books and more than 200 papers in professional journals and edited volumes, including "The Return of Depression Economics" (2008) and "The Conscience of a Liberal" (2007).
Copyright 2012 The New York Times.


'via Blog this'

Wednesday, October 24, 2012

Rachel Maddow: How would Romney adjudicate a rape exception?

Rachel Maddow: How would Romney adjudicate a rape exception?:

  1. Murdoch: Rape God's will?
  2. Ted Akin: If it is legitimate women body has a way to shut that down.
  3. Women's body - who decides what is rape?

'via Blog this'

Sunday, October 21, 2012

5 Key Points Obama Needs to Make in the Debate | Alternet

5 Key Points Obama Needs to Make in the Debate | Alternet:

comments_image 36 COMMENTS

5 Key Points Obama Needs to Make in the Debate

Obama needs to remind us why we liked him in the first place.
 
Photo Credit: Shutterstock.com
 
To: POTUS
From: Robert Reich
RE: Upcoming debate
Your passive performance in the last debate was damaging because it reenforced the Republican claim that you’ve been too passive in getting jobs back and in responding to terrorism abroad.
That doesn’t mean you have to “come out swinging” this time. You need to be yourself, and one of your qualities that the public finds reassuring is your steadiness and authenticity, by contrast to Romney’s unsteady flip-flopping and apparent willingness to say and be anything. But you will need to be more energetic and passionate.
And although the “town meeting” style debate in which you’ll be answering audience questions isn’t conducive to sharp give-and-take with Romney, look for every opportunity to nail him. Indignance doesn’t come naturally to you, but you have every reason to be indignant on behalf of the American people. 
Emphasize these five points:
1. Not only is the economy is improving, but there’s no reason to trust Romney’s claim he would improve it more quickly. He’s given no specifics about how he’d pay for his massive tax cut for the wealthy, or what he’d replace ObamaCare with, or how he’d regulate Wall Street if he repeals Dodd-Frank. His record to date has flip-flopped on every major issue. Why should Americans trust his assertions?
2. Our problems require we pull together, but Romney and his party want to pull us apart. Romney has praised Arizona’s draconian anti-immigration law profiling Hispanics, and has called for “voluntary deportation” by making life intolerable for undocumented workers. He is against equal marriage rights. He wants to ban abortions, and his party and running mate want to ban them even in the case of rape or incest. He’s determined to make the rich richer and the rest of us poorer. Romney is beholden to a radical right-wing Republican party that is out of step with most of America.
3. Romney’s “reverse Robin Hood” agenda is inappropriate at a time when the wealthy are taking home a larger share of total income and wealth than they have in a century, and when the middle class is still struggling. He wants to cut taxes on the rich by almost $5 trillion – which inevitably means higher taxes on the rest of us; and over 60 percent of its budget cuts come out of programs for the poor and working middle class. He’s determined to turn Medicare into vouchers whose value won’t keep up with rising healthcare costs, and turn Medicaid over to cash-starved states. His comment about “47 percent” of Americans not paying taxes and taking government handouts was not only wrong (every working person pays payroll taxes, and every consumer pays sales taxes; and the biggest so-called “entitlements” are Social Security and Medicare, which are insurance programs that Americans pay for during their working years). The comment also reveals a callousness and divisiveness that’s the opposite of what we need now. Romney wants to set Wall Street loose again when the Street’s greed got us into the mess we’re still trying to get out of.
4. Romney views America as if it was one huge corporation, but we’re not a corporation; we’re a nation. He says corporations are people; touts his years at Bain as if making companies profitable qualifies him to be president; wants to deregulate corporations and Wall Street; and assumes CEOs and the wealthy are “job creators,” and if we cut their taxes they’ll have more incentive to create jobs. None of this is true. The nation exists to make lives better for all its people – making sure that corporations treat their workers as assets to be developed rather than as costs to be cut. Companies have been slow to create jobs not because of insufficient profits but because of inadequate customers. The vast American middle class are the real job creators, but they don’t have enough money in their pockets because too many companies have broken the basic bargain linking wages to productivity.
5. On foreign policy, Romney wants to rush to judgment, blaming the administration for not acting quickly enough in Libya on scant information. But that rush-to-judgment mentality is exactly what got us into Iraq eight years ago on the pretext of “weapons of mass destruction.” Two days ago we marked the 50th anniversary of the Cuban missile crisis. Had John F. Kennedy rushed to judgment as Romney wants to, humankind would have been obliterated in a nuclear holocaust. 
Be indignant, but measured and steady – as you naturally are. Practice your closing (your last closing was listless) so the nation can see clearly the choice: We’re all in it together, or we’re on our own.
Robert B. Reich has served in three national administrations, most recently as secretary of labor under President Bill Clinton. He also served on President Obama's transition advisory board. His latest book is Aftershock: The Next Economy and America's Future. His homepage is www.robertreich.org.

'via Blog this'

5 Signs that Romney is Koch Brothers' Lackey | Alternet

5 Signs that Romney is Koch Brothers' Lackey | Alternet:

5 Signs that Romney is Koch Brothers' Lackey

It was hardly love at first sight. But once the Koch brothers threw in behind Mitt Romney, they brought the full force of their political machine, perhaps for a price.
Photo Credit: A.M. Stan
In the beginning, way back during the GOP presidential primary, Charles and David Koch, the billionaire funders of the Republican right, didn’t seem all that keen on Willard Mitt Romney as he made his bid for the party’s presidential nomination. But now they’re all in behind the Mittster, as evidenced by, asAlterNet reported, the vaguely threateningletter Koch Industries sent to its U.S. employees and retirees, auguring bad things if the wrong guy happened to get (re)elected.

But this was not love at first sight. First, there was that troublesome Massachusetts healthcare program (you know, the one with the individual mandate?) that bore Romney’s signature. Then there was his inability to move the very base the Koch brothers had built through Americans for Prosperity and its foundation, the astroturfing organizations founded by the brothers, who own Koch Industries, the second-largest privately held corporation in the United States.

It hasn’t even been a year since Romney addressed an Americans for Prosperity Foundation conference in Washington, DC, and was received with faint applause by a crowd that went wild for pizza magnate Herman Cain. But ‘round about April, something changed. Rick Santorum, the former U.S. senator with interesting ideas about human sexuality, was making life difficult for Romney by showing a knack for winning primaries despite a lack of money and general weirdness.

Romney’s chances for winning the primary in the Midwest Province of Kochistan -- otherwise known as Wisconsin -- were looking iffy. At that point, it seems, the Kochs apparently decided they’d better get behind a candidate who might actually have a shot at beating President Barack Obama. After all, by helping Cain stay in the race as long as they had, via his frequent speaking gigs at Americans for Prosperity events and a campaign staff drawn from AFP’s Wisconsin chapter, they had successfully pushed Romney to adopt an anti-tax position the Kochs found palatable. So, at last, Romney found the Koch love he so desperately needed.

Here are five indications that Romney is now a wholly owned subsidiary of the Koch brothers’ political enterprises.

1. Papering Koch Industries employees with voter guides and dark predictions. Earlier this month, Koch Industries president and CEO Dave Robertson sent a letter to employees and retirees of Koch Industries urging them to vote with the following scary observation:
If we elect candidates who want to spend hundreds of billions in borrowed money on costly new subsidies for a few favored cronies, put unprecedented regulatory burdens on businesses, prevent or delay important new construction projects and excessively hinder free trade, then many of our 50,000 U.S. employees and contractors may suffer the consequences, including higher gasoline prices, runaway inflation and other ills.
Hmm...wonder who they mean to be maligning right there. Robertson’s missive is actually a cover letter for a packet of materials that helpfully includes a list of candidates running in the recipient’s state who are endorsed by Koch Industries. All are Republicans, and Mitt Romney tops the list.

Also included in the packet is an op-ed penned by David Koch, a handful of essays by Charles Koch from the company publication, Discovery, and an article from the right-wing Investors Business Daily.
To view the Koch voter guide for its Virginia employees and retirees, as well as Robertson’s letter, click here.

2. Wisconsin primary endorsements from the Koch machine. In the weeks leading up to the Wisconsin primary, things were looking bleak for Mitt Romney. Wisconsin’s right-wingers, it seemed, really, really liked Rick Santorum, but the Kochs were apparently not so enthusiastic about the Pennsylvania senator best known for the phrase “man on dog.” And then Romney experienced a change in fortunes, thanks to the endorsements of a string of Wisconsin politicians whose careers were nurtured by the Wisconsin chapter of Americans for Prosperity. Of all of the institutions he and his brother have funded in the “public policy arena,” David Koch said at an AFP gathering during the Republican National Convention, “the institution I feel the most closely attached to, and the most proud of, is Americans for Prosperity.”

Most prominent among the group of Koch-approved Wisconsin pols who found a sudden love for Romney was Rep. Paul Ryan, who is now Romney’s running mate. In the final days of the Wisconsin primary, Romney was hardly ever seen without Ryan by his side. In the end, Romney won Wisconsin by a mere 4 points, despite outspending Santorum by four-to-one, effectively ending Santorum’s bid for the nomination. Had Romney not had the endorsements of the AFP crowd, he may have lost Wisconsin to Santorum.

3. The $50,000-a-head Romney fundraiser at David Koch’s summer home.After he locked up the Republican nomination with the help of AFP, Romney enjoyed the hospitality of David Koch at the multibillionaire’s weekend home in Southampton, NY, where the smart set summers. According to a report in theNew York Post, Koch introduced Romney with a riff on Greece’s debt problem, with the suggestion that things in America were headed in that direction.

During the fundraiser, MoveOn.org hosted a lively party outside the gates of the Koch estate, and commissioned a small plane to fly overhead bearing a banner that read, “Romney Has a Koch Problem.”

Inside the gates, the Post reported, Romney told the assembled moguls: “I understand there is a plane out there saying Mitt Romney has ‘a Koch problem.’ I don’t look at it as a problem; I look at it as an asset.”
During the event, according to the Post, Romney and Koch had a tete-a-tete:
Koch was given a private audience with Romney before the event started, heading upstairs with their wives for a personal meeting for 30 minutes before “descending back down like two world leaders with their first ladies,” quipped one attendee.
Wonder what they discussed? Maybe a little blue-skying on potential running-mates?

4. The Ryan pick. If you were choosing a running mate in order to reassure elderly voters, who tend to skew Republican, that you are this country's most trustworthy leader, Paul Ryan, the guy who wants to fundamentally end Medicare and Social Security, probably wouldn’t be your pick. Unless somebody -- somebody whose support you desperately need -- made you. (Even former House Speaker Newt Gingrich denounced the Ryan budget plan as “right-wing social engineering” -- before he walked it back.)
When Romney announced Ryan as his vice presidential pick, I wrote: “Looks like the Koch brothers are going to have to throw a whole lot of money at this thing to make it work for them. But we know they've got plenty of that.”

Now, I don’t know that David Koch made Mitt Romney pick Paul Ryan as his running mate, but I suspect that Ryan wasn’t a name that Romney came up with on his own. You see, it's not just money for his own campaign that Romney needs from the Kochs. He needs the engagement of Americans for Proserity to turn out the vote for him on the ground, an aspect of campaigning the Obama campaign is seen to have a great advantage for. You'll recall that AFP proved its ground-game prowess in the 2010 congressional elections, and in the Walker recall election in Wisconsin.

Ryan’s political career -- really, the only career he has ever known -- is virtually aproduct of the Koch machine. Until Americans for Prosperity began building its Wisconsin infrastructure, Ryan was a little-known congressman who got elected at a tender age. But after the entrance of AFP to his state, the Ayn Rand acolyte’s fortunes grew exponentially, leading to him ultimately win the chairmanship of the House Budget Committee at the tender age of 40.

As AlterNet documented, in 2008, the Wisconsin AFP chapter gave Ryan its Defending the American Dream award -- presented to him by a callow county executive named Scott Walker.

5. Scott Walker’s advice taken. No sooner had Romney named Paul Ryan as his number two than he started running from his running mate. Maybe it was Ryan’s roundly denounced lie-laden speech to the Republican National Convention, or the way Ryan was being hounded by the Nuns on the Bus. But in mid-September, a month after he named Ryan as his running mate, when Romney’s poll numbers were slipping, Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker -- who survived his recall election with a lot of help from Americans for Prosperity -- took to the airwaves to lay down the law.

Romney, Walker said, in successive appearances on talk radio and Fox News Sunday, needed to to stop running from Ryan and campaign with him. Walker’s Fox News Sunday interview took place on September 23; on September 25, Romney and Ryan went on the road together for a bus tour of Ohio.

As arranged marriages go, Paul Ryan came with quite a dowry; the inlaws apparently expect to see it used to good effect.

'via Blog this'

Saturday, October 20, 2012

Greg Palast: "Mitt Romney’s Bailout Bonanza: How He Made Millions from the Rescue of Detroit" | Alternet

Greg Palast: "Mitt Romney’s Bailout Bonanza: How He Made Millions from the Rescue of Detroit" | Alternet:

comments_image 58 COMMENTS

Greg Palast: "Mitt Romney’s Bailout Bonanza: How He Made Millions from the Rescue of Detroit"

And helped send the jobs he destroyed to China.
 
 

AMY GOODMAN: we turn to a major new exposé on the cover of The Nation magazine called "Mitt Romney’s Bailout Bonanza: How He Made Millions from the Rescue of Detroit." Investigative reporter Greg Palast reveals how Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney made at least $15 million on the auto bailout and that three of Romney’s top donors made more than $4 billion for their hedge funds from the bailout. Greg Palast, welcome back to Democracy Now! So, lay it out for us.
GREG PALAST: Oh, it’s one of the creepiest stories I’ve investigated in a long time, Amy. Mitt Romney, through Ann Romney’s blind trust—not so blind, they could see exactly where the money was going—gave their money to Paul "The Vulture" Singer, a guy you and I have been following on Democracy Now! for five years. Singer, with two of his hedge fund buddies, bought up the auto parts division of General Motors for only 67 cents a share. They were able to turn 67 cents a share into $22 a share by threatening GM and the U.S. Treasury with a complete shutdown of the auto industry. They had complete control of all the steering wheels and steering columns of every car that was being made in America. GM would have been liquidated. They literally threatened to shut down GM. And so, they—the government simply allowed GM to pay them $12 billion. About half of that was straight from the U.S. Treasury in a takeover of Delphi’s pension fund.
Once they got the money—once they got the money, they eliminated 28 of 29 auto plants in the U.S. They moved—they eliminated every single job of every UAWmember; 25,200 UAW members all lost their jobs. Almost every plant was then moved by the Romney group to China. Delphi is making a fortune today. So you have 25,000 workers who lost their jobs to China. Three hedge fund managers made at least $4 billion, $4.2 billion. And the Romneys have made at least 15, but the evidence suggests that it’s more like $115 million for the Romneys, about a 4,000 percent profit.
What we can’t get from them at this moment, this may be the reason why they are not releasing their 2009 taxes, because that would give us a better hint. Unfortunately, they’ve not only moved the company operations to China, but they’ve moved their incorporation of the auto parts division of General Motors from Troy, Michigan, to the Isle of Jersey in the Mediterranean Sea, which hides their taxes and also, of course, hides their accounts. So that—that’s the story.
AMY GOODMAN: Greg, how did you get this information?
GREG PALAST: Well, I’ve been, you know, tracking Paul "The Vulture" Singer and his hedge fund for five years, as you saw, for Democracy Now!, from the Congo to England to South America. And I was stunned, absolutely stunned, to find out that the Romneys had given what ABC called a vast chunk of their money to Elliott Management. But it was well hidden. It not only went through Ann Romney’s blind trust, but then the blind trust was put in a special limited liability partnership with Paul Singer, which they then hid their levels of investments. Plus, by putting it in Ann Romney’s name—and remember, every dime that Ann Romney has comes from her husband—by Mitt moving his money to Ann Romney, they didn’t have to declare exactly how much money they made here, only that it was more than a million. But we were able to calculate that it was at least $15 million, and more likely $115 million.
AMY GOODMAN: So, talk about Mitt Romney opposing—this very well-known position he’s had—opposing the auto bailout, and how that plays in here, Greg.
GREG PALAST: Well, two ways. And let’s bring in Paul Ryan, as well. Number one, Mitt Romney said, "Let Detroit go bankrupt." And everyone thought this was a great, principled position. And yeah, he wanted it to go bankrupt so that he could buy the auto parts division for literally pennies, 67 cents a share, then flip it for 30, 40 times that amount. In addition, don’t forget that this is TARP money. This is money that comes from the U.S. taxpayer.
And Paul "The Vulture" Singer became the number one donor also to a congressman named Paul Ryan. And it is, by the way, Singer, according to theWall Street Journal, who forced Romney to accept Ryan as his running mate, in part because Paul Ryan, despite his speeches against TARP and against the bailouts, Paul Ryan voted for both the bank bailout and the auto bailout, very much enriching his number one donor. That’s—so that’s the politics of it, because also Romney has made Paul Singer a key economic adviser, and in addition, he’s considered the most important donor to the Mitt Romney campaign.
AMY GOODMAN: Now, if you can explain more who Paul Singer is and his significance in Republican politics?
GREG PALAST: Well, according to Fortune magazine and Forbes and the Wall Street Journal, he is considered probably the most important of Romney’s coterie of billionaires. He’s the original $1 million donor to the 37-billionaire PAC called Restore Our Future. He’s the guy who kind of signals all the other billionaires where to put their money. So, Singer is very, very important to Mitt Romney.
But most important is that Mitt Romney—Paul Singer, for five years, as we’ve been following him, has been using what are called "vulture tactics." He buys companies out of—he buys companies out of bankruptcy, he buys nations out of bankruptcy, and then threatens them, kind of—figures out a way to hold them ransom, as he did here with the auto parts, where he said, we’re going to literally withhold all the parts for the—for every automaker in America unless you pay me my ransom. This is how he operates.
His tactics are now illegal—actually, since our last broadcast, Amy, once it went out on BBC. Paul Singer’s tactics have been outlawed in England, all throughout Europe, South America, but not in the U.S.A., except, I should note—and this is very important, which may be why Singer has backed Romney, which is that the Obama administration, President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton, have gone to federal court asking the federal courts to put Paul Singer out of business, basically, by saying his vulture tactics are a threat to the world economy and in violation and opposing United States foreign policy. So, basically, Obama and Clinton want to put Singer out of business. And Romney—Romney, we don’t expect will, because Romney’s number one foreign policy adviser, should he get elected president, would be expected to be Dan Senor to take over as secretary of state. Dan Senor’s day job is working for Paul Singer.
AMY GOODMAN: And specifically, the auto bailout money that Paul Singer got?
GREG PALAST: Yes, he—he picked up—his hedge fund has so far picked up $1.29 billion. And you have to understand, that’s about 42 times what he paid for the Delphi division of General Motors. So, basically, this one guy and his hedge fund have earned over a billion dollars, and some of that has now been pieced off to Ann and Mitt Romney. That’s how they made the big cash.
AMY GOODMAN: Delphi Corporation, its role in outsourcing jobs to China, Greg Palast?
GREG PALAST: Well, basically, once the Romney group—that’s Singer, Romney and two other big hedge funds—three other big hedge funds—got a hold of Delphi, they were able to—they decided that—they have proudly said, "We do not have a single North American United Auto Workers member anymore." They’ve closed every plant and moved them to China.
It wasn’t supposed to be that way. The administration and General Motors cut a deal with Tom Gores, who is the owner of the Detroit Pistons. He’s a billionaire. He’s a Flint—a Flint boy like Michael Moore. And he was going to buy Delphi and keep at least half the jobs in Michigan and in the United States. But because of this—because of really extraordinary financial maneuvering, the Romney group was able to overturn the deal that had already been made with General Motors and with Gores and the Treasury to keep Delphi jobs in the United States. Once the of vulture pack took over, they said, "We’ve got our money. We’ve got our $12 billion from the U.S. government. See you later, guys." And they shut down every plant except for one. [inaudible]
AMY GOODMAN: I wanted to turn to a clip of Mitt Romney in the presidential debate.
MITT ROMNEY: And one thing that the—the president said, which I want to make sure that we understand, he said that I said we should take Detroit bankrupt, and—and that’s right. My plan was to have the company go through bankruptcy like 7-Eleven did and Macy’s and—and Continental Airlines and come out stronger. And—and I know he keeps saying, "You wanted to take Detroit bankrupt." Well, the president took Detroit bankrupt. You took General Motors bankrupt. You took Chrysler bankrupt. So, when you say that I wanted to take the auto industry bankrupt, you actually did. And—and I think it’s important to know that that was a process that was necessary to get those companies back on their feet, so they could start hiring more people. That was precisely what I recommended and ultimately what happened.
AMY GOODMAN: That was Mitt Romney on Tuesday at the presidential debate in Hofstra. Greg Palast?
GREG PALAST: Well, he left out something. Romney’s taking credit for the fact that the administration put in billions of dollars of funding to save the jobs at General Motors. They also put in billions of dollars of funding to save the jobs at General Motors’ number one supplier, the Delphi—Delphi, their old Delco division. Mitt Romney didn’t say that he and his own co-investors, in a partnership, overturned the deal that the U.S. government had made to save that auto parts division, and shut it down. They bought it out, shut it down, moved it to China. Now, Romney seemed to have left that one out of the mix. Once again, yes, Delphi was put through bankruptcy, but unlike General Motors, because of the Romney group’s actions, every single UAW job was lost.

'via Blog this'

Wednesday, October 17, 2012

Hardball: Fineman: Obama did well in second debate, but he’s ‘hardly home free’

Hardball: Fineman: Obama did well in second debate, but he’s ‘hardly home free’:
(17th October - Hardball)
'via Blog this'

Watch Romney react to Crowley’s instant fact-checking — MSNBC

Watch Romney react to Crowley’s instant fact-checking — MSNBC:

At Tuesday night’s town hall debate, Mitt Romney inferred that President Obama did not initially refer to the September 11th attack on the U.S. embassy in Benghazi as an act of terror. CNN’s Candy Crowley, the debate’s moderator, instantly fact-checked Romney’s question, recalling that the President did, in fact, refer to the attack as an act of terror in his Rose Garden speech the following day.
Few debate moments are so tense and, frankly, mortifying to watch. “Mitt Romney was sort of hanging tough there,” said NBC’s Chuck Todd after the debate, “And then the Libya moment happened…At that point it seemed that Mitt Romney got rattled.”
“I think the point on Libya,” Rachel Maddow added, “was also in part about the apparent excitability of Mitt Romney on that subject. President Obama had just finished his strongest moment of the debate…Mr. Romney came out stuttering and excited to get out his big attack on the Rose Garden speech, and that it failed in that moment is, I think, what made it so devastating.”
During the live broadcast, viewers at home were able to see the moment of Romney confronting the President on this issue in a powerful close-up. But when Candy Crowley fact-checked Romney, all we saw were the backs of both candidates.
We went back into the isolated footage of the debate to find a camera that was locked on Mitt Romney’s face as Candy Crowley corrected him on this sensitive issue. Take a look at the clip above to see the uninterrupted shot.


'via Blog this'

Rachel Maddow: Romney runs away from Bush in wrong direction

Rachel Maddow: Romney runs away from Bush in wrong direction:
(Romney flip flop so close to the poll date. Post Poll fact checks on women's issues.)
'via Blog this'

Medicare Under Siege, Yet Stronger Than Ever - Sen. Harry Reid

Medicare Under Siege, Yet Stronger Than Ever:

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid speaks during a Senate Democrats' news conference. (photo: Bill Clark/Getty Images)
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid speaks during a Senate Democrats' news conference. (photo: Bill Clark/Getty Images)

Medicare Under Siege, Yet Stronger Than Ever

By Sen. Harry Reid, Reader Supported News
16 October 12

ver the next seven weeks, it will be increasingly clear that Medicare is strong, and that Congressman Paul Ryan's plan to end guaranteed health benefits for seniors is the wrong prescription for America.
Starting today, the nearly 50 million Americans receiving health care through Medicare and new enrollees can sign up for 2013 health benefits that - without Medicare - they couldn't afford.
President Lyndon Johnson's vision of a more affordable health care system for seniors is becoming more of a reality.
As he once put it, no senior should "be denied the healing miracle of modern medicine" or have to "crush and destroy the savings that they have so carefully put away over a lifetime so that they might enjoy dignity in their later years."
Medicare began in 1966. And now, thanks to the Affordable Care Act (ACA), its health coverage is better than before. Under the ACA, savings from cutting wasteful spending and fraud will extend the solvency of the Medicare trust fund by an additional eight years.
A lot has changed since Medicare went into effect. New technologies have developed that keep Americans healthier and help them live longer. Medicine has changed. But one thing hasn't: seniors need affordable care. In fact, the rising cost of health care today means seniors need Medicare's protection more than ever.
From today until December 7, during a period called Open Enrollment, Americans 65 and older, those with disabilities and some with diseases, can choose new coverage options or update old plan choices for 2013.
They can learn about new health benefits, increased discounts on prescription drugs and access new tools to navigate a wider selection of high quality options. All are available at www.medicare.gov.
The health care law phases out the Medicare prescription drug coverage gap known as the "donut hole," for example. In 2013, Medicare recipients who reach it will get approximately 53 percent off brand-name drugs and a 21 percent discount on generic drugs - an improvement from 50 percent off brand names and 14 percent off generics this year.
For a beneficiary with urgent health needs, these savings are significant.
Nevada seniors in the "donut hole," for example, saved over $26 million on prescription drugs costs under health care reform. Next year, seniors across the country in the "donut hole" are projected to save over $720 on their drug costs.
Beneficiaries who want to switch coverage plans can mix and match options. If they want to quickly pinpoint the highest quality plans, Medicare offers 21 more "four or five-star" Advantage plans this year than last, and 13 more "four or five star" prescription drug plans. The star rating system for Medicare Advantage plans, a program that helps seniors asses the quality of private insurance providers, began under the Affordable Care Act.
Keeping quality health care affordable was one of our top goals in writing the Affordable Care Act in Congress. Since it passed in 2010, Medicare Advantage premiums have fallen by 10 percent and enrollment has increased by 28 percent.
Yet despite these benefits, Medicare is under siege.
Congressman Paul Ryan has a budget proposal that would replace guaranteed Medicare benefits with a voucher.
His plan would trade away the health and safety of today's seniors for tax breaks for billionaires, oil companies and corporations that ship jobs overseas.
Turning Medicare into a voucher program, as Congressman Ryan proposes, would increase premiums for most seniors, according to a nonpartisan study released today by the Kaiser Family Foundation. By 2022, the Congressional Budget Office estimates his plan would cost seniors an extra $6,400, on average, for health care.
If Congressman Ryan truly wants to reduce health care spending, he should look no further than the Affordable Care Act. I will never stop fighting to preserve this successful program. I'm proud that Medicare is stronger today than in the past. And as long as I am in the Senate, I will oppose Republican plans to weaken or undermine it.

'via Blog this'

Supreme Court Rejects Appeal to Block Early Voting in Ohio

Supreme Court Rejects Appeal to Block Early Voting in Ohio:

'via Blog this'

Tuesday, October 16, 2012

Death by Ideology - NYTimes.com

Death by Ideology - NYTimes.com:

OP-ED COLUMNIST

Death by Ideology

  • FACEBOOK
  • TWITTER
  • GOOGLE+
  • E-MAIL
  • SHARE
  • PRINT
  • REPRINTS
Mitt Romney doesn’t see dead people. But that’s only because he doesn’t want to see them; if he did, he’d have to acknowledge the ugly reality of what will happen if he and Paul Ryan get their way on health care.
Fred R. Conrad/The New York Times
Paul Krugman

Related in Opinion

Opinion Twitter Logo.

Connect With Us on Twitter

For Op-Ed, follow@nytopinion and to hear from the editorial page editor, Andrew Rosenthal, follow@andyrNYT.

Readers’ Comments

Readers shared their thoughts on this article.
Last week, speaking to The Columbus Dispatch, Mr. Romney declared that nobody in America dies because he or she is uninsured: “We don’t have people that become ill, who die in their apartment because they don’t have insurance.” This followed on an earlier remark by Mr. Romney — echoing an infamous statement by none other than George W. Bush — in which he insisted that emergency rooms provide essential health care to the uninsured.
These are remarkable statements. They clearly demonstrate that Mr. Romney has no idea what life (and death) are like for those less fortunate than himself.
Even the idea that everyone gets urgent care when needed from emergency rooms is false. Yes, hospitals are required by law to treat people in dire need, whether or not they can pay. But that care isn’t free — on the contrary, if you go to an emergency room you will be billed, and the size of that bill can be shockingly high. Some people can’t or won’t pay, but fear of huge bills can deter the uninsured from visiting the emergency room even when they should. And sometimes they die as a result.
More important, going to the emergency room when you’re very sick is no substitute for regular care, especially if you have chronic health problems. When such problems are left untreated — as they often are among uninsured Americans — a trip to the emergency room can all too easily come too late to save a life.
So the reality, to which Mr. Romney is somehow blind, is that many people in America really do die every year because they don’t have health insurance.
How many deaths are we talking about? That’s not an easy question to answer, and conservatives love to cite the handful of studies that fail to find clear evidence that insurance saves lives. The overwhelming evidence, however, is that insurance is indeed a lifesaver, and lack of insurance a killer. For example, states that expand their Medicaid coverage, and hence provide health insurance to more people, consistently show a significant drop in mortality compared with neighboring states that don’t expand coverage.
And surely the fact that the United States is the only major advanced nation without some form of universal health care is at least part of the reason life expectancy is much lower in America than in Canada or Western Europe.
So there’s no real question that lack of insurance is responsible for thousands, and probably tens of thousands, of excess deaths of Americans each year. But that’s not a fact Mr. Romney wants to admit, because he and his running mate want to repeal Obamacare and slash funding for Medicaid — actions that would take insurance away from some 45 million nonelderly Americans, causing thousands of people to suffer premature death. And their longer-term plans to convert Medicare into Vouchercare would deprive many seniors of adequate coverage, too, leading to still more unnecessary mortality.
Oh, about the voucher thing: In his debate with Vice President Biden, Mr. Ryan was actually the first one to mention vouchers, attempting to rule the term out of bounds. Indeed, it’s apparently the party line on the right that anyone using the word “voucher” to describe a health policy in which you’re given a fixed sum to apply to health insurance is a liar, not to mention a big meanie.
Among the lying liars, then, is the guy who, in 2009, described the Ryan plan as a matter of “converting Medicare into a defined contribution sort of voucher system.” Oh, wait — that was Paul Ryan himself.
And what if the vouchers — for that’s what they are — turned out not to be large enough to pay for adequate insurance? Then those who couldn’t afford to top up the vouchers sufficiently — a group that would include many, and probably most, older Americans — would be left with inadequate insurance, insurance that exposed them to severe financial hardship if they got sick, sometimes left them unable to afford crucial care, and yes, sometimes led to their early death.
So let’s be brutally honest here. The Romney-Ryan position on health care is that many millions of Americans must be denied health insurance, and millions more deprived of the security Medicare now provides, in order to save money. At the same time, of course, Mr. Romney and Mr. Ryan are proposing trillions of dollars in tax cuts for the wealthy. So a literal description of their plan is that they want to expose many Americans to financial insecurity, and let some of them die, so that a handful of already wealthy people can have a higher after-tax income.
It’s not a pretty picture — and you can see why Mr. Romney chooses not to see it.

'via Blog this'