The Facts Republicans Don't Want You To Know

Since no one wants the details, I’ll give you the facts that the Republicans don’t want you to hear or remember.

Since the Democrats and Republicans split in 1828 the US has had 4 depressions. With the exception of the 1837 depression that lasted until 1844, the other 3 (1873-1879, 1893-1898, and 1929-1941) occurred with Republicans.

There have been 11 recessions since Democrat Franklin Roosevelt (1933-45) and his ‘New Deals’ ended the Great Depression. The total recession months for the 5 Democratic presidents since 1945 is 25 months; the 6 Republicans have 101 months. The recession of December 2007-February 2009, lasted 14 months (Bush), has been called the worst recession since the Great Depression. This is what Barack Obama inherited.  

And, compare today’s 8.3% rate of unemployment to that of 10.8% in November 1982 (Reagan) which is the highest level of unemployment in any recession; it was above 10% for 10 months. In spite of Republican votes to keep the Bush tax cuts and stop Obama’s Job Act, 4.5 million jobs have been created through July 2012.

Ask yourself if these facts along with yesterday’s (the last 3 Republican presidents increased our national debt by 359% or 18% per year) support Marco Rubio’s idea that a Republican is what we need to make ”This century…just as great for our country if not better than the last hundred years”. 

Rubio's Great 100 years

On August 29, 2012 Florida’s Republican Senator Marco Rubio said to NBC’s Brian Williams–“This century can be an American century, there’s no reason why this next hundred years can’t be just as great for our country if not better than the last hundred years and I think that’s important”. I agree so let’s take a look. 

Democrats and Republicans were one party until 1828. Abraham Lincoln and Andrew Johnson were both Republicans (1861-1869); they abolished slavery and showed a separation between the rich and poor by only pardoning the less wealthy Confederates. Republicans used to support the Constitution (Ulysses Grant gave black men the right to vote with the 15^thAmendment and signed the first Civil Rights Act in 1875). Republican President William Taft authorized income taxes with the 16^th Amendment to the Constitution in 1913. Republicans from Lincoln to Dwight Eisenhower created most of the federal bureaucracy in order to watch businesses. Today’s Republicans are NOT those of yesteryear. They want to pardon the rich, take away peoples’ civil rights, and remove the regulations and taxes put in place by their predecessors.  

Ronald Reagan (1981-1989) cut taxes on the rich and raised the debt ceiling 17 times - the national debt went from $848 billion to $2.7 trillion - up 218%. George HW Bush (1989 – 1993) raised the debt ceiling 4 times, from $2.7 trillion to $4.188 trillion - up 55%. George W. Bush (2001-08) removed Bill Clinton’s tax increases on the rich and gave them tax breaks; raised the debt ceiling 7 or 8 times and left the national debt at $10.627 trillion - up 86%. These 3 Republican presidents increased our national debt by 359% or 18% per year. FYI - President Bill Clinton (1993-2001) raised the debt ceiling 4 times and national debt went from $4.188 trillion to $5.728 trillion - up 37% or 4.6% per year. I’ll talk about Obama’s situation separately as he inherited a recession and has been stopped by Republicans from implementing a tax increase on the rich.  

What are the 99% thinking

Missouri born Rush Hudson Limbaugh III according to Forbes 2012 is worth $350 million. Because his parents' wanted him to attend college he enrolled in Southeast Missouri State University but he after 2 semesters and one summer (his mother said "he flunked everything", "he just didn't seem interested in anything except radio").  Limbaugh began his career in radio as a teenager in 1967 in his hometown of Cape Girardeau, he was not drafted during the Vietnam War as he was classified as "1-Y" and later reclassified "4-F" due to a Pilonidal Cyst at the bottom of the tailbone (most doctors think its caused by an ingrown hair, another theory is it’s due to irritation). His talk show began in Sacramento, California in 1984, in 1988 he began broadcasting nationally from New York City and he currently broadcasts from Palm Beach, Florida. The Rush Limbaugh Show is the highest-rated talk-radio program in the US and he is among the highest paid people in US media - signed a contract in 2008 for $38 million a year through 2016. As far as I’m concerned the only good thing that’s come from this staunch ultra-conservative Republican was a McDonald’s in Rio Linda, California that was the result of his bad mouthing the town and President Clinton’s visit finding there wasn’t one. 

Bill Maher according to Forbes 2012 is worth $23 million. He was born in New York City, raised in New Jersey and received a B.A. in English and history from Cornell University in 1978. Maher began his career as a stand-up comedian in 1979, started appearing on TV talk shows in 1982 and in movies in 1985. Politically Incorrect with Bill Maher ran from 1993 to 2002 (he made a controversial on-air remark shortly after the September 11 attacks and his contract wasn’t renewed). In 2003 Maher became the host, co-producer and co-writer of Real Time with Bill Maher, a political comedy talk show. In May 2005 Alabama Republican Congressman Spencer Bachus sent a letter to the board of directors requesting the show be cancelled after Maher noted the military had missed its recruiting goals by 42%; in July 2011 the show was renewed for a tenth season. Since May 2005 he has been a contributing blogger at The Huffington Post (he’s also a frequent commentator on various cable news networks).  Maher has been nominated for 22 Emmys and hasn’t won one. He shuns political labels, he’s referred to himself as "practical" and has described himself as a libertarian as well "as a progressive, as a sane person", taking shots at both parties.  

I don’t agree with a lot of Bill Maher’s comments (sometimes he’s as bad as Rush Limbaugh) but I really want to know along with him if this generation of American voters is really dumber than their parents. An August 2 poll showed a tight race between Obama and Romney. As Maher, I understand why 1% of Americans would support Romney (those like Limbaugh and Clint Eastwood who’s worth $375 million) but I don’t understand the rest. On August 8 a Washington Post poll said Romney’s favorability is stalled and Obama is having a trouble with the male vote. This might help to explain the situation. On July 16 it was reported that women for the first time in 100 years overtook men in IQ tests (averaging 5 point higher scores); the study found at 20 months girls have 131 more words than boys, it’s thought that estrogen makes women better gamblers, doctors, and more and because they juggle more in their lives it’s sharpened their brains. Women need to take this opportunity to sway their husbands, boyfriends and sons as I believe this is probably one of the most important elections of our time.

On August 5 we heard that in Oak Creek, Wisconsin a 40 year old Neo-Nazi ex-vet (served stateside 92-98 when he was demoted and found ineligible for re-enlistment) who had just lost his job and girlfriend, opened fire in a Sikh (Indian) temple killing 6 and critically injuring 3 (including a police officer who was shot multiple times while he was treating a victim) before he shot and killed himself; the shooter had a semi-automatic handgun; the Neo-Nazi group denounced him saying he was crazy. I agree with the President’s statement that we have to do some soul searching when it comes to guns. On July 4 the Islamic Society of Joplin, Missouri's mosque was set on fire and arson was found to be the cause; on August 6 the mosque was burned to the ground. Dr. Ahmed Asadullah, a member of the Islamic Society, said “This is what we stand for…Freedom of religion, Freedom of speech." Have we really gotten so far from our Constitution that we do not believe in equality and freedom for all? 

On August 4, 2012 it was reported that there were over 100 Occupy protesters in Oakland, California; in the process Obama’s campaign office was vandalized along with several car windows. Were they angry and taking things out on anything in their way or was the defacing of property of those supporting them intentional? Do we truly believe that in attaining liberty that all workers are NOT to be given at chance at the American dream (in one year Romney gave more to his church than the average worker will make in a lifetime)? Do we actually feel it is right that big business continue with practices that gave us the Great Depression and several recessions? Do we sincerely think that Social Security and Medicare should be reduced or taken away so the rich can pay a smaller percentage of their income to taxes? I’m sure I can come up with more questions to show my confusion with the American voter but this is enough to support my point. On August 8 a Reuters poll showed 64% of the people thought the country was going in the wrong direction; perhaps, but don’t take it out on the wrong people.

History of the American Dream

So far we’ve learned that Wall Street caused the Great Depression (1929), when government pushed business it caused a recession (1937), during the recession hourly wages increased, and in war government spending is up (11.7% of the population was in the military) but unemployment is down. My February 1 blog - 2012 South Carolina Debate - outlines the history of the stock market and when hedge funds came into play (1983).

In 1950 the ratio of the average executive's paycheck to the average worker's paycheck was about 30:1. Paul Krugman, an economist at MIT and columnist for the New York Times cited the average CEO pay as 36:1 in 1976. (When I became a first-level supervisor in the 1970s, I had 31 direct employees and was making less than those at the top of their pay scale; I don’t know what the top executive’s made.) In the 1980s the ratio was 40:1. The second surge of the Great Wealth Transfer (the first was in the late 1800’s to 1929) began here; once again we had deregulation and corporatization of our government (government policy to cut taxes for the wealthiest individuals, those who made the most money from exploiting the resources and advantages that America gave them; giving little back in return). Latchkey kids became the norm as both parents needed to hold jobs to make ends meet. Cheap fast-food restaurants became the soup kitchens of America. According to Kevin Murphy of the University of Southern California, the ratio was 191:1 in 1993. In Doug Henwood’s ‘After the New Economy’ (2003), he exposed that the richest 10% of Americans possess over all the wealth in America and the bottom 50% has almost none of the wealth, but they do have substantial debt. Krugman in 2002 reported that in the 29 year period between 1970 and 1999, the average annual salary in America rose 10% whereas, during the same period, according to Fortune magazine, the average real annual compensation of the top CEOs in America rose more than 1,000 times the pay of ordinary American workers and according to a 2001 Congressional Budget Office study between 1979 and 1997, the after-tax incomes of the top 1% of American families rose 157%. In 2000 the ratios of the average executive’s pay to the worker’s pay was about 300:1 and in 2005 it was 369:1. In 2006 it was 821:1 (Drum Major Institute Injustice Index). According to a 2006 study by the Center for American Progress, Americans were spending 126.4% of their pay to cover the cost of living. In that same year, investment bank UBS declared that corporations were enjoying the “golden era of profitability” with corporate profits climbing to the highest amount since the 1960’s. Despite double digit increases in productivity levels, the American worker’s pay had increased less that 2%. Profit from productivity gains went straight into the pockets of the corporate executives. According to Executive Excess 2007 the August report by the Institute for Policy Studies and United for a Fair Economy said the 20 highest-paid fund managers made an average of $657.5 million in 2006--22,255 times the average $29,500 annual US salary. Others pointed out that the average wage of Americans adjusting for inflation is lower than it was in the 1970s. The minimum wage, adjusting for inflation, is lower than it was in the 1950s. From the latter part of 2010 until the end of 2011 per the Bureau of Labor Statistics price increases outpaced wage increases at which time the growth rate of prices and earnings began to converge.

We heard that 163,000 jobs were added in July (total under Obama about 4.5 million) and unemployment rose to 8.3% because people who had stopped looking for work were again looking; the DOW went up 217 points saying it was better than expected and it’s reported that no president has won re-election with unemployment above 8% since the Great Depression. This was brought up on the August 5 This Week with George Stephanopoulos program as well as the Tax Policy Center report saying “Our major conclusion is that any revenue-neutral individual income tax change that incorporates the features that Governor Romney has proposed would provide large cuts to high-income households and increase the tax burden on middle and/or lower income taxpayers.” Republican Reince Priebus (RP) tried to say the report was written by a former employee of Obama’s and George pointed out that one of the authors worked for Bush and Mitt Romney himself has cited this tax institute as a credible source. To cover his tracks, RP gave a lot of rhetoric as to what was not taken into consideration in the report in regard to budget reductions (he left out education, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, regulatory agencies and more). When the August 3 Bureau of Labor Statistics report came out Romney said there were 23 million people looking for work; funny the report said 12.8 million (too bad this wasn’t brought up). As far as RP’s comment - I think this President has a problem with the American dream. When I grew up…my parents didn’t point at that house and say look at these lousy people in their beautiful house, look at this guy in his new corvette; my Dad …turned around and said look pal if you work hard and go to school…we hope you live in …(a house) 2 times bigger than that house. That’s the American dream and this idea that - we’re spending all of our time just killing people because they’re living the American dream and made something out of nothing and made money - is just crazy talk, I think not. American liberty is not about allowing the rich to continue their strangulation of the hardworking American and the taking away of their American dream. Wages went up during the 1937 recession; this is not the case today. If you want to get out of this mess we need to have the sense of the 1940s Americans and re-elect Obama so he can do what FDR and Clinton (1993 – 2001) did to bring the country back. 

Republican Chairman & the American Dream

On the August 5, 2012 This Week with George Stephanopoulos the Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus said – We have an opportunity in this country to save the very idea of America, to bring back the days of liberty, freedom and the American dream…I think this President has a problem with the American dream. When I grew up…in Wisconsin…we drove around town and passed a beautiful house on the corner, my parents didn’t point at that house and say look at these lousy people in their beautiful house, look at this guy in his new corvette; my Dad …turned around and said look pal if you work hard and go to school, Mom and Dad, we hope you live in that house, we hope it’s 2 times bigger than that house. That’s the American dream and this idea that - we’re spending all of our time just killing people because they’re living the American dream and made something out of nothing and made money - is just crazy talk. Since the past was brought up, I decided to look into it. 

The first Wealth Transfer happened from about the late 1800’s to 1929 when American workers and consumers were victims of the robber barons --greedy and ruthless businessmen and bankers who amassed incredible wealth by exploiting labor and a lack of government regulation.  In 1928 the top 1% of the population had incomes 650% greater that the bottom 10% of Americans. In 1929, 200 of the biggest corporations controlled 50% of the nation’s corporate wealth. Then came the Great Depression caused by the October 1929 Wall Street Crash; it began almost a decade of high unemployment, poverty, low profits, deflation, plunging farm incomes, and lost opportunities for economic growth and personal advancement. The usual explanations include: high consumer debt, ill-regulated markets that permitted over-optimistic loans by banks and investors, and the lack of high-growth new industries. Industries that suffered the most included: construction, agriculture (due to dust-bowl conditions – severe drought and high winds coupled with decades of extensive farming without crop rotation, uncultivated fields, cover crops or other techniques to prevent wind erosion), shipping, mining and logging as well as durable goods like automobiles and appliances that could be postponed. The economy reached bottom in the winter of 1932–33 (sound familiar). Franklin D. Roosevelt (FDR), president from 1933 – 1945, launched the New Deal, an economic recovery plan that instituted unprecedented programs for relief, recovery and reform, and brought about a major realignment of American politics. In the 1933-4 ‘First New Deal’ the National Recovery Administration (NRA) sought to stimulate demand and provide work and relief through increased government spending. To end deflation the gold standard was suspended and a series of panels comprised of business leaders in each industry set regulations which ended what was called "cut-throat competition" believed to be responsible for forcing down prices and profits nationwide. The NRA set minimum prices and wages and competitive conditions in all industries, it encouraged unions to raise wages in order to increase the purchasing power of the working class and it cut farm production to raise prices so farmers could earn a living. The NRA ended in March 1935 when the Supreme Court declared it unconstitutional. In 1934–36, during what was called the ‘Second New Deal’, FDR added social security, the Works Progress Administration (WPA) a national relief agency  and through the National Labor Relations Board, a strong stimulus to the growth of labor unions. Unemployment fell from 25% to 9% (1933–1937).

Corporations and investment houses again expanded and consolidated into too-big-to-fail megaliths. FDR launched a campaign against monopoly power which some said was the cause of the Recession of 1937. In February 1938 Congress passed a new Agricultural Adjustment Act which authorized crop loans, crop insurance against natural disasters, and large subsidies to farmers who cut back production. On April 2, FDR sent a new large-scale spending program to Congress which was split among PWA, WPA, and various relief agencies and the economy recovered. In most sectors, hourly earnings continued to rise throughout the recession which partly compensated for the reduction in the number of hours worked. The farm population had fallen 5% but farm output was up 19% in 1939. Although the American economy recovered in mid-1938, employment did not regain the 1937 level until the US entered World War II on December 8, 1941 after the bombing of Pearl Harbor. Economists blame the 1937 recession on: cuts in federal spending and increases in taxes (Keynesian), the Federal Reserve's tightening of the money supply (Milton Friedman) and more recently (Jonathan Catalan) a large expansion of the money supply that did not tighten until after the recession began; I think it was business’ response to FDR’s campaign.

With the war manufacturing employment leaped from 11 million in 1940 to just over 18 million in 1943 and productivity steadily increased. During World War II (1941-1945) the US population averaged 136.6 million people (133,402,471 on July 1, 1941 to 139,928,165 on July 1, 1945) and 16,354,000 men and women served in the Army, Army Air Corps, Navy, and Marines (11.7% of the population). In addition another 12-20 million (about 12%) were in factories producing tanks, planes, food, and ammo for the government. Government spending was up but unemployment was down. 

Campaign Law - Part 2

In June 2008, the section of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) of 2002 known as the "millionaire's amendment" was overturned by the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) in Davis v. Federal Election Commission (FEC). This provision attempted to "equalize" campaigns by providing that the legal limit on contributions would increase for a candidate who was substantially outspent by an opposing candidate using personal wealth. “Questions of honor are raised as much by appearances as by reality in politics and because they incite public distrust, they need to be addressed no less directly than we would address evidence of expressly illegal corruption,' John McCain wrote in 2002. During 2008 McCain in his bid for the presidency consistently voiced concern over campaign practices and their funding. “By the time I became a leading advocate of campaign finance reform, I had come to appreciate that the public's suspicions were not always mistaken. Money does buy access in Washington and access increases influence that often results in benefiting the few at the expense of the many." Although docketed on August 18, 2008, SCOTUS didn’t hear oral arguments until March 2009 in Citizens United v. FEC case regarding whether or not a political documentary (critical of Hillary Clinton) could be considered a political ad. In a 5–4 decision, the Court held that portions of BCRA §203 violated the First Amendment. SCOTUS reversed, striking down those provisions of BCRA that prohibited corporations (including nonprofit corporations) and unions from spending on "electioneering communications". The decision overruled Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce (1990) and partially overruled McConnell v. FEC (2003). The Court did uphold requirements for public disclosure by sponsors of advertisements (BCRA §201 and §311). The case did not involve the federal ban on direct contributions from corporations or unions to candidate campaigns or political parties which remain illegal in races for federal office. By January 2010 at least 38 states and the federal government required disclosure for all or some independent expenditures or electioneering communications, regardless of whether the speaker is a corporation. On January 21, 2010 SCOTUS in (5-4 vote) Citizens United v. FEC struck sections of BCRA of 2002 down which limited activity of corporations, saying, "If the First Amendment has any force, it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech. We now conclude that independent expenditures, including those made by corporations, do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption." (The minority said the court was making a mistake treating the voices of corporations as similar to those of people.) Citizens United made it legal for corporations and unions to spend from their general treasuries to finance independent expenditures but did not alter the prohibition on direct corporate or union contributions to federal campaigns; those are still prohibited. Such organizations seeking to contribute to federal candidate campaigns must still rely on traditional PACs for that purpose. However, they may spend money independently of campaigns without forming a PAC. The Court did uphold the requirements for public disclosure by sponsors of advertisements (BCRA §201 and §311). President Obama expressed his concern over SCOTUS' decision during his January 27, 2010 State of the Union Address saying, "With all due deference to separation of powers, last week the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests –- including foreign corporations –- to spend without limit in our elections. I don't think American elections should be bankrolled by America's most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities. They should be decided by the American people. And I'd urge Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps to correct some of these problems." He also called the decision, "a major victory for big oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies and the other powerful interests that marshal their power every day in Washington to drown out the voices of everyday Americans.” In the wake of the decision Republican Senator John McCain said "there's going to be, over time, a backlash ... when you see the amounts of union and corporate money that's going to go into political campaigns".

The Supreme Court was created in 1789 by Article III of the US Constitution, which stipulates that the "judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court" together with any lower courts Congress may establish. Congress organized the Court that year with the passage of the Judiciary Act of 1789. It specified the Court's original and appellate jurisdiction, created 13 judicial districts and fixed the number of justices at 6 (one Chief Justice and 5 Associate Justices). Since then, historically in response to the country's expansion in size, Congress has altered its size; membership decreased to 5 in 1801, increased to 7 members in 1807, to 9 in 1837, to 10 in 1863, was reduced to 7 in 1866 and in 1869 Congress set the Court's size to 9 members where it has remained since. The current 9 members are: Antonin Scalia, appointed by Reagan in 1986, Anthony Kennedy appointed by Reagan in 1988, Clarence Thomas, appointed by GHW Bush in 1991, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, appointed by Clinton in 1993, Stephen Breyer, appointed by Clinton in 1994, John G. Roberts, appointed by GW Bush in 2005, Samuel Alito, appointed by GW Bush in 2006, Sonia Sotomayor, appointed by Obama in 2009, and Elena Kagan, appointed by Obama in 2010. I now understand why Republicans were angry with Justice Kennedy supporting ObamaCare (he was a Republican appointee) and why many of the Court’s rulings have favored corporations (5 of the 9 are Republican appointees). 

US Campaign Law - Part 1

AlterNet said in fear #3 - Never mind that everybody gets pummeled by propaganda and bile. But the issue is far bigger than letting the public know who is behind today’s political advertising barrages. One of the biggest campaign finance abuses in 2012 is the use of nonprofit tax structures to run shadow campaigns for specific candidates. Efforts by Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell blocked a bill that would require people who write big checks for campaigns to disclose that activity so Americans would know who is paying for the television, radio, Internet ads, billboards, political junk mail and robo-calls in their states. McConnell was called the nation’s “hypocrite in chief” for this effort because for years he preached no regulation of campaign donations or spending just timely disclosure so an informed public could make up its mind (see 2003 Supreme Court case below). That pretense evaporated during the Senate’s recent DISCLOSE bill debate in which he and other senators who long supported disclosure closed ranks, blocked and defeated the measure.

On July 16, 2012 with a 51-44 vote the Senate Republicans unanimously voted to block the Democracy Is Strengthened by Casting Light On Spending in Elections (DISCLOSE) Act which would have required political organizations to disclose the names of donors who give $10,000 or more. On July 17 with a party line vote (53-45) Senate Republicans blocked a second attempt to end the GOP filibuster on the DISCLOSE Act. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said that if Congress doesn't do something to curb the torrents of money being spent on political campaigns by secret donors then "17 angry old white men will wake up" on the morning after Election Day "and realize they've just bought the country." Democratic Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, the bill's lead sponsor, said the current system permits "legalized political money laundering" that is "a perfect recipe for corruption. Hang on to your wallets. Here come the special interests. And you won't even know who they are." McConnell said it is "member and donor harassment and intimidation. We have serious problems in this country. Too much free speech is not one of them." Republican Senator Orrin Hatch called the Democratic ploy "pathetic" and called DISCLOSE "one of the most deliberately political pieces of legislation you will ever see." The Office of Management and Budget said it strongly supports the act which it called a "necessary measure to ensure transparency and accountability."  I believe there has been a lot of wasted court time and business money put into political campaigns. As of August 9 $1.3 billion had been spent for this election that could have been used to help the American people.

In 1947, as part of the Taft-Hartley Act, the US Congress prohibited labor unions or corporations from spending money to influence federal elections and prohibited labor unions from contributing to candidate campaigns (an earlier law, the 1907 Tillman Act, had prohibited corporations from contributing to campaigns). Labor unions moved to work around these limitations by establishing political action committees to which members could contribute. In 1971, Congress passed the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA). In 1974, amendments to FECA defined how a PAC could operate and established the Federal Election Commission (FEC) to enforce the nation's campaign finance laws. The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) of 2002 (McCain–Feingold version was replaced by Connecticut Republican Representative Chris Shays’ HR 2356) amended the FEC Act of 1971 which regulated the financing of political campaigns, became effective November 6, 2002 and the new legal limits became effective on January 1, 2003. In the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) 2003 decision in McConnell v. FEC most of the BCRA of 2002 was upheld (it was also partially overruled in 2008 with the Davis v. FEC, 2009 with Citizens United v. FEC and in 2010 with the Citizens United v. FEC decisions). The case was brought by groups such as the California Democratic Party and the National Rifle Association, and individuals including US Senate Majority Whip Mitch McConnell who argued that the legislation was an unconstitutional infringement on their First Amendment rights. Senator McConnell had been a longtime opponent of BCRA in the Senate and had led several Senate filibusters to block its passage. In December 2006 the FEC entered settlements with three 527 groups the Commission found to have violated federal law by failing to register as "political committees" and abide by contribution limits, source prohibitions and disclosure requirements during the 2004 election cycle. Swift Boat Veterans for Truth was fined $299,500; the League of Conservation Voters was fined $180,000; MoveOn.org was fined $150,000. In February 2007, the 527 organization Progress for America Voter Fund was likewise fined $750,000 for its failure to abide by federal campaign finance laws during the 2004 election cycle. In June 2007 SCOTUS held in FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc., that BCRA's limitations on corporate and labor union funding of broadcast ads mentioning a candidate within 30 days of a primary or caucus or 60 days of a general election are unconstitutional as applied to ads susceptible of a reasonable interpretation other than as an appeal to vote for or against a specific candidate. Some election law experts believed the new exception would render BCRA's "electioneering communication" provisions meaningless while others believed the new exception is quite narrow.  

There’s more to come. 

Republican Fears - Part 2

Fear #3: Standing By Their Words in Public – Republicans want to end all campaign finance regulation so there can be unfettered speech and doesn’t want members and backers to stand up in public saying "I paid for this ad and I approve of this message." The GOP’s stalwart defenders say that disclosing who is bankrolling their campaign efforts would be to expose donors to public criticism and possibly attack. The great benefit to the GOP’s patrons, including many corporate executives and trade associations (see May 12 – Political Sugar Daddies blog), is that the nonprofit ruse allows them to avoid limits on donation amounts, and equally important, donors to these nonprofits are not legally required to identify themselves. Think about this. It’s okay for multi-millionaires and corporate lobbies to bankroll the most negative ads in a presidential election year—ads that are thrust upon millions of people whether we want to hear them or not—but the individuals or interests who are paying for those messages are to be protected from criticism or angry responses.

What do these 3 fears say about the kind of national political party that is today’s GOP? It is a party that does not have the confidence to stand by its ideas or funders in public. It is a party that does not trust voters to accept or reject their agenda—in fair votes. It is a party that cannot live with the consequences of not obstructing bills and appointments in the US Senate. Instead, today's Republican Party must cheat, bully, lie and hide to preserve its power in 2012. Without gaming the rules in Congress, without limiting who votes in state and national elections, and without hiding their patrons from the American people, they know they’d lose—and lose badly.

Related other stories are: On July 26, 2012 Thomas Perez, assistant attorney general for the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice (DOJ) had to testify before a House Judiciary subcommittee on the Military and Overseas Voter Empowerment (MOVE) Act of 2009 and Pennsylvania (PA) voter ID law. Although Republicans accused the DOJ of not doing enough to make sure members of the military can register to vote and that they receive absentee ballots at least 45 days before federal elections – the fact is - "This year we (DOJ) sued 4 states -- Alabama, California, Georgia and Wisconsin -- for noncompliance with the MOVE Act during their primary and runoff elections." Perez said his department tries to block voter ID laws that threaten to disenfranchise minority voters. Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-New York, said in the PA case officials have admitted they have no investigations or prosecutions concerning in-person voter fraud. Nadler played a June video in which PA House Majority Leader Mike Turzai, a Republican, says the voter ID law will "allow Governor Romney to win the state of PA." Nadler said "I don't think it goes too far to demand that the Civil Rights Division give close and careful scrutiny to any voting changes likely to or intended to disenfranchise voters. There is clearly a national strategy to disenfranchise voters for partisan political purposes and it is the most widespread and aggressive such campaign since the Jim Crow era." Perez noted that former Attorney General Michael Mukasey who served under President George W. Bush said that voter ID laws can sometimes represent a burden to voters. (In other words the laws can hinder people’s ability to vote.)

Here’s Politico’s list of the most competitive presidential swing states that have enacted new voting restrictions this cycle and where those laws stand: Pennsylvania - Several groups, led by the PA American Civil Liberties Union, have challenged its constitutionality in state courts; the first hearing took place July 25 (a decision to support the law came August 15). The DOJ opened an investigation into the law but it looks like the new requirements will be in effect for November. Florida - The early voting provisions and changes for voters who move between counties are in effect in 62 of Florida’s 67 counties; it cannot be implemented in the other 5 until the state gets pre-clearance from DOJ. The restrictions on third-party registration drives are on hold statewide after Groups like the League of Women Voters and Rock the Vote successfully filed suit against the state. Virginia - Signed into law in May and awaiting DOJ pre-clearance before it can take effect. New Hampshire - The law is awaiting DOJ pre-clearance; it will most likely take effect before November. Ohio – A suit has been filed in Ohio to try to restore the extra 3 days of early voting; it’s unclear whether those days will be restored before Election Day. Wisconsin - Various outside groups challenged the new voter ID law in federal and state court. A state judge found the law unconstitutional under the Wisconsin Constitution and has placed a stay on the law. Proponents of the law have appealed the decision, and there’s still a chance the law could go into effect before November. North Carolina - It’s unlikely that the proposed photo ID requirements will be passed into law before November. Other states with strict photo ID laws: Alabama (not in effect until 2014, if it gets pre-clearance); Georgia (in effect); Indiana (in effect); Kansas (in effect); Mississippi (on hold); Rhode Island (in effect, but strict photo ID requirements begin in 2014); South Carolina (on hold); Tennessee (in effect); Texas (on hold) – DOJ is suing.

In my opinion the Republicans must go to extremes to make sure Americans hear their rhetoric and eliminate those that may actually be listening. Tomorrow I’ll give you the history of campaign laws.  

Republican Fears - Part 1

AlterNet on July 31, 2012 had a post that summed up the Republicans. As the 2012 presidential campaign takes a breather, we need to consider why today’s Republicans are no longer the party of Abraham Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt or Richard Nixon but instead a truly toxic aberration. As James Fallows noted a year ago in the Atlantic, the modern GOP’s biggest sin is discarding “political norms” that everyone once understood would hurt the country such as attacking labor unions by not paying 74,000 federal air traffic controllers and construction workers last August. Since then the GOP’s bad behavior has only worsened. In the introduction of the book It’s Even Worse Than It Appears it says “However awkward it may be for the traditional press and nonpartisan analysts to acknowledge, one of the 2 major parties, the Republican Party, has become an insurgent outlier—ideologically extreme; contemptuous of the inherited social and economic policy regime; scornful of compromise; un-persuaded by conventional understanding of facts, evidence, and science; and dismissive of the legitimacy of its political opposition.” Anyone who has been around a child throwing a temper tantrum would recognize today’s congressional Republican leadership: threats and bullying, finger-pointing and running to his room and slamming the door. Republicans are afraid of losing power and influence in American politics and culture. Today’s Republicans cannot compete fairly and win. And when it comes to political tactics, there are 3 things today’s GOP fears more than almost anything:

Fear #1: Majority Rule in the Senate - On July 25 the Senate held 2 tax cut votes that were not blocked by Republicans. The first vote (45-54) rejected a GOP plan to extend all of the Bush-era income tax breaks. The second vote (51-48) approved the Democrats’ tax plan, which would extend the Bush-era tax cuts to the first $250,000 Americans earn in a year (including that of billionaires). Senate Republican leaders said they allowed the vote (did not filibuster) because it would have no effect as tax policy must originate in the House and that the GOP controlled chamber would certainly reject it (it did with a 170-257 vote). In most legislative bodies, simple majorities - 50% + 1 is all that is needed to pass legislation. In the Senate arcane rules allow endless debate or filibusters to continue unless there are 60 votes to end debate. Both times, simple majorities voted to reinstate higher federal income tax rates on the wealthiest Americans. In any other economic downturn this outcome would be common sense. In today’s anti-tax GOP the tax vote showed the ideas championed by Republicans are destined for defeat when they cannot hide behind parliamentary tricks and obscure super-majority votes. Republicans know they must game the Senate rules to win and have increasingly relied on that rule to block all kinds of Democratic proposals and relied on “holds” to block nominations to federal posts, particularly judges. Even the mainstream media has called the GOP’s abuse of the Senate filibuster rules a “road to gridlock.” (This has been done by both parties in the past; it’s unfair to yell about it now but as this is an ongoing problem perhaps we should consider trying a 55 vote for resolution.)

Fear #2: Open Elections - Like political cancer, in state after state since 2010, Republican-controlled legislatures have gone to great lengths to complicate many aspects of the voting process, from registration to ballot-access rules. The goal, as a Wisconsin Republican legislator bragged, is to suppress perceived Democratic voting blocks, particularly people of color, the poor and students. Instead of satisfying age, residency and citizenship status—and showing that one is mentally fit and has no felony record (as in most states)—these new laws say you cannot get a ballot unless you also have a specific kind of state government photo ID. Not everybody has that ID or the documents needed to obtain it. In states like Wisconsin, it has closed offices where people must go to obtain the required photo IDs—creating further barriers to voting. In Texas, it has limited the kind of ID that can be presented at polls, barring university IDs, to suppress student voting, but allowing gun permits. The right to vote has never been based on plastic. Yet, 30 states have laws in place that require voters to show an ID before voting in November, up from 24 states 4 years ago. This anti-democratic trend is larger than just photo ID laws. Florida passed laws imposing draconian fines and filing deadlines on voter registration groups, which, despite being blocked by a court recently, stopped groups like the League of Women Voters from registering people for months. In the latest twist, Tea Party officials who oversee elections from Florida’s governor to the secretaries of state in Colorado and Michigan have been claiming that hundreds of thousands of non-citizens are on official voter rolls that must be purged before November. “It just shows confusion” said Ion Sancho, Leon County Florida election supervisor and a lawyer who oversaw Florida’s 2000 presidential recount until halted by the U.S. Supreme Court. These harmful tactics only show that today’s white-dominated, wealth-worshiping GOP knows it cannot hold onto power in an increasingly multicultural America unless it keeps communities of color, young people and women from voting.

You would think today’s Republicans would be more confident in their ideas, stand by them and trust the voters to decide. But that is not the case, a point that is underscored by the third thing the GOP fears: revealing who is bankrolling their electioneering (this will be tomorrow’s blog).

US Bankers Agree With Obama

Romney from the beginning said he will repeal the Dodd-Frank Act that Obama signed in order to punish Wall Street scammers and limit banking transactions that put Americans at risk. (June 29, 2012 Peter Madoff pled guilty to falsifying compliance reports that kept his brother Bernie’s Ponzi scam hidden from regulators; he got 10 years in prison and July 17 a Senate investigation found that the British HSBC bank allowed billions of dollars of Mexican drug cartel money to be laundered through its operations; the bank also did business with Middle East terrorists - Al Qaeda and Iran - and may lose its US banking license.)

On July 26 the Daily Finance had an article that said: Sanford "Sandy" Weill, the tycoon who built financial conglomerate Citigroup into a massive US commercial and investment bank said it is time to split up the biggest banks so they can go back to growing again. "The world changes and the world that we live in is different from the one that we lived in 10 years ago" Weill said in an interview with television network CNBC. Other long-time Wall Street players were quick to applaud Weill. Arthur Levitt, Weill's former business partner in the 1960s and a chairman of the Securities Exchange Commission in the 1990s said: "It's a very difficult statement for him to make since he was largely responsible for the repeal of Glass-Steagall and he's absolutely right. This is a very significant statement. Congress put in place limits on how large they (the banks) can get and deprived government of the ability to come in and rescue them from their mistakes" he told lawmakers at the House Financial Services Committee hearing. The Glass-Steagall law, known as "The Banking Act of 1933," was passed during the Great Depression to help restore faith in banks. It revamped the financial system, creating, for example, deposit insurance, in addition to separating commercial and investment banking. Looser regulations in the 1980s and 1990s chipped away at Glass-Steagall. But when Weill's Travelers Group, which included an insurer and the Salomon Brothers investment bank, took over Citicorp in 1998, it needed a special temporary regulatory exemption to operate those businesses together. Weill lobbied heavily for key provisions of Glass-Steagall to be repealed, a change he won in 1999. Since then, the US banking system has become considerably more concentrated. John Reed, the former chief executive of Citicorp who worked with Weill on the 1997 merger with Travelers, said in March that he (Reed) regrets his role and is astounded at the way banks continue to fight regulations to rein in risky activities. "It wasn't that there were one or two institutions that, you know, got carried away and did stupid things. It was, we all did ... and then the whole system came down," Reed said on Bill Moyers' public television show. But Weill called for far deeper changes among the major banks, noting that when investment banks are no longer eligible to be bailed out by the Federal Reserve, they can go back to innovating and growing fast.

These bankers are supporting the actions Obama has taken which means we are heading in the right direction. If you’re angry with what happened to your 40lKs and other retirement pensions or the mortgage catastrophes and bailouts you should not vote for Romney as doing business as we have in the past will eventually lead us back into another recession. Stop blaming Obama for the errors of the Republicans and big businessmen that have taken advantage of you.

While the rest of us are concerned about the economy the Republican House continued to fight for the Bush tax cuts for the rich. FYI on July 25 the US House of Representatives voted (256-171) to extend the Bush tax cuts through 2013 (Timothy Johnson of Illinois was the only Republican to vote against HR8) defying a veto threat from President Obama and rejected with a 170-257 vote the Senate’s bill (S3412) supported by Obama that would let tax cuts for top earners expire and keep the cuts for those making $250,000 or less; some are saying these actions set up a partisan showdown on fiscal policy after the November 6, 2012 election. I agree that we need a tax overhaul but the Republicans’ HR8 and HR6169 are not the answer. The Republican tax overhaul process bill (HR 6169) called – Pathway to Job Creation through a Simpler, Fairer Tax Code Act of 2012 according to Ron Paul is not the answer. Ron Paul voted ‘no’ along with Democrats and his website said it consolidates the 6 current individual income tax brackets into 2 (10% and not higher than 25%), reduces the corporate income tax rate to not more than 25%, repeals the alternative minimum tax, broadens the tax base so that tax revenues are maintained at 18-19% of the Gross Domestic Product, and reforms the current foreign taxation system; it doesn’t cut spending. This past year has proven that just because the rich have money in their pocket, doesn’t mean they’ll use it to create jobs which would in effect lower the government debt because more revenue would be coming in and less would be spent on what Republicans call entitlement programs (welfare, social security, Medicare, Medicaid, etc). The rich may be paying a lot of dollars in taxes but the middle class is paying more of a percentage of their income for taxes and this is not fair. If the Republicans truly wanted to improve our economy they would have addressed the Jobs Act instead of having continuing to vote on repealing ObamaCare.     

Republican Tax Tactics

In Romney’s July 28, 2012 interview with ABC his taxes were brought up (one year he paid 13.9%) and he said “My view is, I’ve paid all the taxes required by law, I don’t pay more than what’s legally due. And frankly if I had paid more than what’s legally due I don’t think I’d be qualified to become President. I think people would want me to follow the law and pay only what the tax code requires.” When asked if he’d go back and look at his tax returns to see what percentage of tax he paid he said “I know I’ve paid a very substantial amount of taxes in every year since the beginning of my career so far as I can recall.” (July 31 Democratic Senate President Harry Reid tried to goad Romney into giving more tax returns by saying that he didn’t pay taxes for 10 years.) August 3 in Nevada Romney is still saying he’s paid a lot of taxes and won’t release anymore than his 2011 when it’s done.

On July 31 we heard on average it costs parents $250,000 and 20,000 hours to get their kids to the Olympics; I wonder if any of this is deductible. On August 1 Senator Marco Rubio, R-Fla., introduced the Olympic Tax Elimination Act, to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 that began taxing athletes at a rate of 35% on the value of their Olympic medals and cash payments of $25,000 for gold, $15,000 for silver and $10,000 for bronze. Rubio introduced the bill in response to a report from Grover Norquist’s lobbying group Americans for Tax Reform estimating that the medals would subject gold medal winners to about $8,936 in taxes, silver medalists to $5,385 and bronze medalists to $3,502 in taxes. The research found that in addition to the cash payments to Olympians, at today’s commodity prices, the value of a gold medal is about $675, a silver medal is worth about $385 while a bronze medal is worth under $5. Rubio’s bill would exempt US Olympic medal winners from paying federal taxes on their medals and prize money earned in the Olympics. If enacted into law, the gross income of Olympic athletes “shall not include the value of any prize or award won by the taxpayer in athletic competition in the Olympic Games.”  This would apply to prizes and awards received after December 31, 2011. (Some other countries tax the awards US athletes earn in their countries and the UK has waived the tax for the 2012 Olympics.) I do agree that taxing the value of the medals is inappropriate. But, I do think the cash awards should be taxed as income and at the same rate as if the money was earned here in the US.

I think this is an interesting tactic by Republicans who want to have the American people believe they want to reduce taxes. This tax that Rubio wants to do away with was put in place during the Reagan era and to me it again shows that Reagan’s economics were not good for the average American. Now let’s look at the taxes on corporations.

Under legislation dating from 1984 (again during Reagan’s term as president) taxes were lowered on companies doing business in other countries. We then had the Foreign Sales Corporations (FSC) Repeal and Extraterritorial Income Exclusion Act (ETI) of 2000 which was introduced by Texas Republican Representative Bill Archer on July 27, 2000 and signed by President Clinton on November 15 (note: both houses of Congress were controlled by Republicans). This Act effectively reinforced the FSC tax break and extended it to all types of entities with qualifying foreign sales, including 'S' corporations and LLCs, which were previously excluded. Foreign companies which are US taxpayers could also use the tax break which was not the case previously. (There are rules requiring a certain proportion of US-manufactured content and a certain proportion of foreign costs; and foreign tax credits on the goods concerned are not available to a participating entity. Actual manufacture can take place either inside or outside the US.) Basically, the US Internal Revenue Code authorized the establishment of FSCs, being corporate entities in foreign jurisdictions through which US manufacturing companies could channel exports; 15% of the revenue concerned was exempted from corporation tax, meaning (at 35% tax) that companies kept 5.25% more of their revenue. The European Union (EU) did not accept the new legislation as conforming to World Trade Organization (WTO) rules and after a long series of hearings and appeals the WTO ruled definitively against the ETI rules in late 2002. In the absence of a substantial change in the ETI regime, the EU filed a complaint with the WTO and it was eventually declared unacceptable. The EU prepared a list of US products on which it intended to apply sanctions in the form of countervailing duties and obtained the WTO's permission for such action which it finally put into effect in early 2004. After much back and forth, President George W Bush finally signed a law in late 2004 which repealed the FSC-ETI legislation in favor of broader tax reliefs. In other words, Bush gave the companies a bigger tax break. 

America, it’s not about what taxes Romney paid it’s about his continued support of the tax breaks for the rich and companies doing business overseas. There is no way that he can create jobs in the US without incentives to bring jobs back. I again think he’s talking out of both sides of his mouth. Clinton gave in to his Republican Congress and perhaps this is why Republican Paul Ryan said Obama isn’t a Bill Clinton Democrat. Obama is proposing a 20% tax credit for companies bringing jobs back to the US; this is what we need and it would help deter any future complaints from the EU.  

Romney Overseas - Final

The Washington Post July 31, 2012 article said: The assessments of the trip (Romney’s weeklong visit to London, Israel and Poland) ranged from scathing to resigned among the Republican professional political class.

One senior Republican strategist granted anonymity to speak candidly said “I find this entire trip borderline lunacy. “Why on earth is he seeking to improve his foreign policy credentials when there will not be a single vote cast on that subject?” Ed Rogers, a longtime Republican operative, was more measured but acknowledged that the trip was something short of an unqualified success by saying “Romney abroad is the same as Romney at home. His performance is uneven at times but overall pretty good.” Another veteran Republican political consultant reached for a golf metaphor when asked to explain Romney’s performance in Europe — and whether it will hurt his campaign domestically. “He’s like the guy who is a competent-but-not-gifted athlete who learns to play golf. He works really hard at it and most of the time he’s perfectly competent, if not stellar. But once each round he is going to shank one and break a window on a house lining the golf course.” These aren’t the sort of impressions Romney wanted to create when he left for Europe.

The goal of the trip seemed obvious — a chance for Romney to prove to doubters that he was more than up to serving as the face of America on the world stage. Those close to the Romney campaign reject even the idea that the foreign trip was a net negative for them. Yes, the candidate made a few errors, they acknowledge, but they were minor when compared to the overall message — praise from Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu and an endorsement from Poland’s Lech Walesa — that the average American voter received from Romney’s travels over the last week. As evidence, they point to a series of front pages in swing states like the Palm Beach Post, the Dayton Daily News and the Las Vegas Review Journal — all of which played the Israel visit very favorably.

While no one in the political orbits of either Romney or President Obama thinks that this election will be decided by foreign policy, there is a sense that a challenger with little experience in that area has to show that he can meet a minimum level of credibility abroad. Call it the commander-in-chief test, which according to the latest NBC-Wall Street Journal poll Romney had yet to pass; in that survey 45% of respondents said Obama would make the better commander in chief, while just 35% said Romney would be superior on that front. It’s hard to imagine that Romney did himself any favors in answering lingering questions about his foreign policy acumen during this trip. On the other hand there is an argument to be made that nothing — literally, nothing — other than the economy at home matters to undecided voters. And that goes double for foreign policy which is a bottom-of-mind issue for most voters. In a late May Washington Post-ABC News poll, 1% of people said that foreign policy was the most important issue of the 2012 campaign. Yes, only One!

The problem for Romney coming off of this trip is (many of his staunchest defenders within the party seem to have fallen back on) “he’s not great but he doesn’t need to be great”. This argument may wind up working — no president since World War II has been reelected with anything close to the 8+ percent unemployment rate Obama is likely to face — it’s not one that will inspire huge amounts of confidence in the GOP as summer turns to fall.

In Romney’s July 28 interview with ABC when asked if he’d want a do-over in London Romney said “I tend to tell people what I actually believe and the comments that were made in the media is something which I felt was an honest reflection of what was being concerned or what was concerning folks.” He also said that the debates will be about 2 different paths or plans.

If you read my preceding blogs of his trip I think anyone who thinks Romney’s trip was even somewhat successful is nuts but unfortunately they do influence Americans. I also believe that we are in for a major breakdown in world politics if Romney is elected but considering only 1% of Americans have the sense to be concerned with this issue, I think the Washington Post is right in thinking unemployment may be the deciding factor. A factor that Republicans have controlled with their failure to approve the Jobs Act and proposal to take away tax credits to American businesses overseas.   

Romney Overseas - Part 3

On July 30, 2012 Romney arrived in Poland and met former Polish president Lech Walesa in Gdansk. Walesa said through a translator “I wish you to be successful because this success is needed to the United States, of course, but to Europe and the rest of the world, too, Governor Romney get your success; be successful!” thus giving Romney his endorsement. Following his meeting, Prime Minister Donald Tusk didn’t publicly support Romney. Solidarity, the trade union group that spearheaded the Polish struggle against communist rule, said “Mitt Romney supported attacks on trade unions and employees’ rights. Solidarity was not involved in organizing Romney’s meeting with Walesa and did not invite him to visit Poland.” Alex Storozynski, president of the Kosciuszko Foundation, a nonpartisan Polish educational and cultural group, said “Poles in Poland are frustrated with the Obama administration.” (Obama didn’t fulfill his promise to add Poland to a list of visa waiver countries-it would’ve allowed freer flow of travel to and from the US for families, business people and tourists; some are miffed by Obama’s “reset” policy with Russia, a longtime Polish nemesis, and his backing away from using Polish soil for our anti-missile systems-part of George W. Bush’s missile defense plan), and in May during remarks at the White House he referred to “a Polish death camp” as opposed to a Nazi death camp in German occupied Poland – this drew swift and stern public rebukes from Polish leaders that led to a letter of regret to Polish President Komorowsk.) There is ample evidence US-Polish ties, particularly military, remain strong. Obama approved steps to assign a US Air Force contingent to Poland beginning in 2013 as part of the NATO alliance. And both countries’ military leaders (Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and the Polish Defense Minister) say they have close working relationships. John Micgiel, director of the East Central European Center at Columbia University said “But what Mr. Walesa says doesn’t carry a lot of weight with Poles or Polish-Americans.  He thinks differently than most people. They don’t see Obama as their candidate or Mitt Romney as their candidate. They are truly swing votes.”

On July 31 after Romney paid his respects to Poland's war dead, he shook hands with a small gathering of the nation's military veterans and chatted with Warsaw's mayor. As Romney made his way to his vehicle, reporters shouted questions to him which he ignored. (During his trip Romney did sit down for interviews that included CNN, NBC, CBS, ABC and Fox News.) His traveling press secretary, Rick Gorka, lost his cool and cursed at reporters. Here's the questions and Gorka's response: CNN: "Governor Romney are you concerned about some of the mishaps of your trip?, New York Times (NYT): "Governor Romney do you have a statement for the Palestinians?, Washington Post: "What about your gaffes?, NYT: "Governor Romney do you feel that your gaffes have overshadowed your foreign trip?", CNN: "Governor Romney just a few questions sir, you haven't taken but 3 questions on this trip from the press! Gorka: "Show some respect". NYT: "We haven't had another chance to ask a question..." Gorka: "Kiss my ass. This is a Holy site for the Polish people. Show some respect." Moments later Gorka told Politico reporter Jonathan Martin to "shove it." About a half-hour later, the aide called reporters to apologize. Gorka's comments to the media came just hours before Romney's foreign policy speech in Warsaw.

In Warsaw Romney said “In a turbulent world, Poland stands as an example and a defender of freedom. (After the US and Afghanistan, the country has committed the third highest number of troops to the Afghanistan war.) I and my fellow Americans are inspired by the path of freedom tread by the people of Poland…Today, as some wonder about the way forward out of economic recession and fiscal crisis, the answer once again is to ‘Look to Poland.” “The world should pay close attention to the transformation of Poland’s economy…A march toward economic liberty and smaller government has meant a march toward higher living standards, a strong military that defends liberty at home and abroad, and an important and growing role on the international stage.” (Romney frequently makes Europe a foil of his domestic stump speech, warning voters that they do not want to head down a path to becoming a “social welfare state.”) Romney also said “I believe it is critical to stand by those who have stood by America. Solidarity was a great movement that freed a nation. And it is with solidarity that America and Poland face the future.” Romney also said “He (Pope John Paul II) reminded the world there would be no justice in Europe without an independent Poland and he reminded the Polish people, long deprived of their independence, from where they drew their strength. John Paul the Second understood that a nation is not a flag or a plot of land; it is a people - a community of values. And the highest value Poland honors - to the world's great fortune - is man's innate desire to be free.” Romney praised the Pope and his Cold War ally, Ronald Reagan, for their roles in bringing down the Soviet Union. He also warned about present-day Russia, a nation that Poland has long viewed warily. And while he shelved some of his usual tough talk about Russia, which he had previously dubbed America’s “No. 1 geopolitical foe,” he still sent a message likely to be greeted coolly in Moscow. “In Russia, once-promising advances toward a free and open society have faltered,” Romney said.

In trying to downplay the missteps, Romney told Fox News Channel “They'll instead try to find anything else to divert from the fact that these last 4 years have been tough years for our country.” This may be true but Romney in one week made friends with one country while managing to tick off 5. 

Romney Overseas - Part 2

On July 29, 2012 Romney gave a speech in Jerusalem where he hailed the city as "the capital of Israel," in apparent support of a position held by the Jewish state but never accepted by the global community. The comment was swiftly rejected by Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erakat and senior aide to President Abbas as "absolutely unacceptable" and "harmful to American interests in our region." (Palestinians want to establish a capital in East Jerusalem which has been in Israeli control since the 1967 war along with the West Bank and Gaza Strip.) Romney also pledged during a CNN interview to move the US Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem -- something the past 3 US presidents have declined to do while in office.

July 30 Romney said to an audience of affluent Jewish donors (he raised more than $1 million) "I was thinking this morning as I prepared to come into this room of a discussion I had across the country in the United States about my perceptions about differences between countries. You notice a stark difference in economic vitality" between Israel and the Palestinians (proceeding to badly flub the economic output numbers on both sides). "And as I come here and I look out over this city and consider the accomplishments of the people of this nation, I recognize the power of at least culture and a few other things," he said, citing an innovative business climate and the Jewish history of thriving in difficult circumstances. (Romney also noted that such difference is between other countries that are near or next to each other; Chile and Ecuador, Mexico and the United States.) In his remarks Romney also reflected on books he's read by Jared Diamond (Guns, Germs and Steel), David Landes and his adviser Dan Senor to help him better understand Israel. The Landes book, The Wealth and Poverty of Nations, helped him understand decline in great civilizations. He said "If you could learn anything from the economic history of the world it's this: culture makes all the difference." The Huffington Post quoted Erekat as saying: "It is a racist statement and this man doesn't realize that the Palestinian economy cannot reach its potential because there is an Israeli occupation. It seems to me this man lacks information, knowledge, vision and understanding of this region and its people. He also lacks knowledge about the Israelis themselves. I have not heard any Israeli official speak about cultural superiority." (Israel has had a blockade of the Gaza Strip in place since 2007, since the Islamic militant group Hamas seized the territory, which has affected the growth of the Palestinian economy. Israel allowed more food and non-military items into Gaza in 2010.)

In response Erekat said "Yesterday he destroyed negotiations by saying Jerusalem is the capital of Israel and today he is saying Israeli culture is more advanced than Palestinian culture. Isn't this racism?" The White House issued a statement saying the Obama administration continues to work on resolving the issue of the US Embassy "and others in a way that is just and fair, and respects the rights and aspirations of both Israelis and Palestinians." After Romney made the fresh controversial statements, President Barack Obama's office urged Romney to clarify his comments. White House spokesman Josh Earnest said "One of the challenges of being an actor on the international stage, particularly when you're traveling to such a sensitive part of the world, is that your comments are very closely scrutinized for meaning, for nuance, for motivation,"…the comments have left some people "scratching their heads a little bit,"…"But I would leave it to Governor Romney to further explain what he meant and what he intended when he said that." (Romney's position on Jerusalem, the eastern half of which Palestinians claim as the capital of a promised future state, runs counter to longstanding US policy.) "It's the view of this administration that the capital is something that should be determined in final status negotiations between the parties," Earnest said. "If Mr. Romney disagrees with that position, he's also disagreeing with the position that was taken by presidents like Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan."

In my December 31, 2011 - December Debate Continued, Romney said – he agreed with Gingrich overall saying - I think we ought to stick by our friends (Israel) but not jump ahead and try to negotiate. Romney said he’s not a bomb thrower (in regard to Newt’s comments) and said ultimately the Palestinians and Israel need to decide. This is not the message that Romney left the area with. In fact, at this point of his trip he has managed to anger the British and the Palestinians; heck, he’s probably irritated Mexico and Ecuador as well with his comments. I’ve read a lot of information lately about what’s going on in the world and I really think that I’m not an expert but Romney in his getting information from books thinks he understands the cultures of the world. This on top of going against everything the US has believed for decades does not make me feel that he understands the need of a good foreign policy. And, the fact that only 1% of the American people are concerned with this is really bothersome to me as we do not live in this world alone and the growth of our economy depends on other countries.   

Now, let’s go on to Poland.