What could Mitt not want us to see?

Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney today requested a six-month extension to file his 2011 federal income taxes, said Andrea Saul, his campaign spokeswoman. Saul said he would file his taxes and release the return before the Nov. 6 general election.

No Big Govt; Less Taxes; Stop Subsidies... I mean unless they're agricultural or for the oil industry; squeals TEXAS!!! The lone star state with its hand out.

Farm Subsidies….Gaines County Texas 2^nd largest recipient of Federal Agricultural Funding but votes against Federal Handouts … hmm like farm subsidies…”oh no, we deserve those!”

The political shift hasn’t stopped the flow of payments to the county’s cotton and peanut growers who have relied on aid dating to the 1930s Dust Bowl and Great Depression. Gaines County farmers took $797 million in payments from 1995 to 2010, including price supports, soil-conservation programs and crop- failure compensation, according to a database compiled by Washington-based lobby the Environmental Working Group. That puts it second in the nation behind Fresno County, California, as a recipient of federal funds.

Farmers use the programs mainly to give banks confidence that the loans to finance planned crops will be paid back regardless of weather or commodity prices, says Delmon Ellison, Jr. who farms 4,000 acres of cotton, peanuts and wheat in the area.

Mitt Romney: A presidential candidate for the very few. Cut TAXES for the RICH and PISS on the POOR!!!

A Cruel Budget

In February, after embarrassing himself by saying he was “not concerned about the very poor,” Mitt Romney explained that the government’s safety net would take care of them, and he promised to repair any holes in the net. That promise didn’t last very long. On Thursday, House Republicans approved, on a party-line vote, a disastrous new budget that would leave millions of struggling families desperate for food, shelter and health care — and Mr. Romney has embraced it. 

The budget, developed by Representative Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, would cut $3.3 trillion from low-income programs over 10 years, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, even more than the $2.9 trillion in Mr. Ryan’s first disastrous budget last year. 

 

“It’s an excellent piece of work,” Mr. Romney said. (Rick Santorum said it didn’t cut enough.) 

The biggest of the cuts would be to Medicaid, the joint federal and state program that is already gasping for money in many states that put a low priority on health care for low-income people. Mr. Romney often talks casually about turning the program over to the states entirely and simply writing a check to dispose of a half-century federal commitment. The Ryan budget exposes just how paltry that check would be: a cut of $810 billion through 2022, one-fifth of current spending, which would lead states to drop coverage for an estimated 14 million to 28 million people. 

By eliminating the expansion of Medicaid in the health care law, cutting $1.6 trillion, it would leave another 17 million low- and moderate-income people uninsured. 

Just as revealing is the acceptance by Mr. Romney and the other Republican presidential candidates of the Ryan plan to cut food stamps, now known as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP. The budget would cut 17 percent of the SNAP budget, or $133.5 billion over a decade. As the center points out, there are only two ways to achieve that savings: Mr. Romney could simply take the benefits away from 8 million of the 47 million who now receive them, or he could cut everyone’s benefits. For a struggling family of four, that would mean a loss of $90 worth of food a month. 

Already, most people who get SNAP benefits use them up in the first two weeks of a month, and many turn to food banks by month’s end. Cutting benefits so sharply would lead to a significant increase in hunger, particularly among children, which would quickly create dangerous ripples through the health and education systems. 

At the same time, though, those families would find themselves unable to pay for health care, and they would also face reductions in housing assistance, job training and Pell grants for college tuition, all of which Mr. Ryan wants to cut, with Mr. Romney’s approval. 

In all, 62 percent of the budget’s cuts come from low-income programs, and that’s on top of the substantial cut in spending already in place from last year. But the Ryan budget does contain a substantial tax cut for the rich, which is one of the reasons Mr. Romney said he was “very supportive” of the plan. 

“It’s a bold and exciting effort,” he said, “and it’s very much consistent with what I put out earlier.” It is also consistent with his stated lack of concern for the very poor.

USA: Millionaires would pay a minimum 30 percent effective tax or their fair share!!!

Millionaires would pay a minimum 30 percent effective tax rate under a law introduced on Wednesday in the Senate with the backing of President Barack Obama and named after billionaire investor Warren Buffett.

Nicknamed the "Buffett Rule," the tax bill reflects President Obama's view of the unfairness he says is represented by Buffett's tax anomaly - that Buffett pays a lower effective rate than his secretary does.

The "Paying a Fair Share Act of 2012," introduced by Democratic Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, has almost no chance of passage this year as the Republican-controlled House of Representatives has sworn off tax increases.

Revenue generated from the tax has yet to be officially calculated, but Whitehouse said it could raise $40 billion to $50 billion a year.

In October, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, a Democrat, introduced the American Jobs Act, which included a first version of the Buffett rule as a 5.6 percent surtax on millionaires. It never came to a vote.

About 94,500 taxpayers, a quarter of all U.S. millionaires, pay a lower tax rate than the bulk of middle-income taxpayers, according to the Congressional Research Service.

Buffett makes a living off investments, which are taxed at 15 percent for capital gains and qualified dividends. Buffett's secretary earns a salary and is taxed in wage-income tax brackets that range from 10 percent to 35 percent.

The tax fairness issue flared last month when Republican Mitt Romney, one of the wealthiest men ever to run for president, and his wife Ann came under pressure to release their tax returns.

Documents released last week showed they paid an effective tax rate of 13.9 percent in 2010 and expect to pay a 15.4 percent effective tax rate when they file their returns for 2011.

President Obama in his State of the Union address last week when he called for the 30 percent minimum tax. Buffett's secretary, Debbie Bosanek, attended the speech as a guest of first lady Michelle Obama.

Man not of the PEOPLE Mitt Romney earned $21.6 mln and paid 13.9% tax less than half the rate a USA middle class family has to pay!!!!

Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney earned $21.6 million in 2010 and paid 13.9 percent of that amount in income taxes, using the preferential rate on investment income and charitable deductions to pay a smaller share of his earnings than top wage earners typically do.

The former private-equity executive and Massachusetts governor earned more than half of his income from capital gains and dividends, which are taxed at a top rate of 15 percent, rather than the 35 percent top rate for ordinary income. His campaign publicly released the returns today.

I'm sure most Republicans have a Tax Rate of 15% why otherwise would you support such a party; right Tea Party, etc??? I mean it would be stupid otherwise.

Warren Buffett, the billionaire calling for more taxes on the rich, said Mitt Romney’s U.S. rate of about 15 percent reflects poor laws.

And failings by the candidate for the Republican presidential nomination to see the problem.

Death & Taxes are assured for the 99% but not so for the 1%

With more than $100 billion in annual revenues and nearly $15 billion in operating profits, Verizon is a large and prosperous company. Yet, between 2008 and 2010, the company used a variety of tax avoidance techniques to receive $951 million in rebates from the federal government -- an effective tax rate of -2.9%. At the state level, Verizon paid just 2.6% in taxes compared to a 6.8% state average.



All of this is unsurprising from a company whose five highest executives took home $258 million in salary and benefits over the last four years. Without a doubt, Verizon represents not just the 1%, but the top one-tenth of 1% of the country. And they are shifting their tax bill to the 99%.

And while Verizon was becoming one of America's biggest tax dodgers, Verizon and Verizon Wireless were also seeking to cut benefits for its workers. The company is pushing a new contract that would eliminate sick days for workers hurt on the job, cut health coverage promised to retirees and force workers to pay thousands per year in healthcare costs -- on top of the fair share in taxes they already pay.

Verizon's antics are just another illustration of the destructive power of corporate greed.

Should Politicians Vote Party Line or “Think” and Vote Reasonably…

Some of us want to pay taxes, allow gay marriages, preserve the separation of church/mosque/synagogue/temple & state, avoid costly wars and figure out a way off of oil. No matter how much others might not want these things there will always be fiscal conservatives who are social liberals.

Mr. Brown has told friends he was unprepared for the extent, in his view, to which Republicans have not made sufficient efforts to accommodate him on critical issues, like putting on the ballot measures to extend taxes to avoid budget cuts.

In one case, Mr. Brown told a friend, he said he felt like “we weren’t even on the same playing field” in negotiating face to face with a Republican lawmaker who would not accept his assertion that most money in the California education budget did not go to administrative costs. Mr. Brown said he finally just stood up and left the meeting.

Again and again, he said, he has found that approaches that once worked — inviting Republicans to dinner rather than attacking them, offering measured concessions on issues like pension cutbacks and spending, trying to rally public support for what he described as balanced proposals — were no longer effective.

“He is aghast,” said Jodie Evans, a longtime associate who had recently had dinner with Mr. Brown in Oakland. “He reports on some of the conversations, like he couldn’t believe the narrowness or lack of comprehending by public officials.

At 73, Mr. Brown is certainly indefatigable and remains exceedingly optimistic, as was clear during a cheerful 45-minute interview in his office last week. He said he would propose another budget next year that again offered the Legislature a choice between raising taxes or imposing more cuts, in the belief that at some point, voter backlash to reductions would push some Republicans to act on taxes.

“I mean, how much less school do you want?” he said.

Even though Democrats outnumber Republicans in the Legislature, state law requires a two-thirds vote on tax bills.

“The Republicans are far less engaged and independent than they were 30 years ago,” Mr. Brown said. “The Republicans then were very independent. Everything was not a party-line vote.”

We did get a balanced budget on time. We didn’t get the tax extensions but we got massive cuts that won praise on Wall Street.”

We have disasters in 48 of 50 states .... and where's Congress?

Do you ever wonder why you pay taxes; schools, infrastructure, disasters, national defense, social safety net, kindda makes sense.... think its called civilization...


The Democratic-led Senate on Thursday sent the House of Representatives a measure to fund disaster aid by twice as much as the House wants to spend -- laying the groundwork for another political showdown.



The Senate voted 62-37 to approve $6.9 billion to cover disaster response until October 2012.

But the measure is unlikely to pass the Republican-led House, which prefers to offset spending increases with cuts in another part of the budget.


After a record year for natural disasters, the Federal Emergency Management Agency is running short on funds to help victims of hurricanes, tornadoes and wildfires.

FEMA had to suspend some payments for longer-term projects to have enough money to distribute to victims of last month's Hurricane Irene and other recent disasters. President Barack Obama has asked for $5.1 billion to boost FEMA's coffers.


Lawmakers from both parties say they want to help the disaster victims in a year in which Obama has declared a disaster in 48 of the 50 states. They just disagree on how.


"This is the only vehicle that we have before us to do long-term full funding for disaster relief," said Democratic Senator Mary Landrieu of Louisiana. "Sending a strong vote from the Senate today will help us negotiate with the House."


Next week the House will consider a proposal that includes $1 billion in disaster aid to be made available right away. The money would be included in a must-pass spending bill to keep the government running past September 30.


House Republicans said the $1 billion would be offset by cutting a program that promotes electric vehicles.

Landrieu criticized the House plan as being a short-term proposal that will just partially fund a limited number of disaster relief programs for six weeks.


"You cannot budget for disaster relief in six-week segments," Landrieu said in a letter to House Speaker John Boehner. "Disaster recovery does not work that way ... . You cannot rebuild communities with six-week plans."


Senators from both parties, particularly those from disaster-struck states, have said recovery aid should not get tangled up in the partisan bickering that has dominated Washington budget talks this year.

Taxes are what we pay for a civilized society

Let’s get the partisan nonsense on the table.
First, consider the claim that Americans are being taxed to death. In fact, in terms of the economy as a whole, federal taxes are at their lowest level since 1950. The Congressional Budget Office estimated that federal taxes would account for 14.8 percent of gross domestic product in 2011.

That isn’t a one-year anomaly: Revenue was 14.9 percent of GDP in both 2009 and 2010. Compare that with a postwar average of about 18.5 percent of GDP, and an average of 18.2 percent during the administration of President Ronald Reagan.

Which brings us to a second dubious claim: Raising taxes in a downturn hinders growth. In 1982, amid a punishing 16-month recession, Reagan approved the largest peacetime tax increase in U.S. history. A booming economy followed in 1983 and 1984, enabling him to sail to re-election.

In 1993, President Bill Clinton forced a tax increase through Congress that Representative Dick Armey, then chairman of the House Republican Caucus, condemned as a “job killer” that would push the economy into recession. That increase was succeeded by the creation of 23 million new jobs, and the Clinton administration left a budget surplus of about $236 billion. By contrast, President George W. Bush pushed through two rounds of tax cuts and created just 3 million jobs. He also turned the surplus he inherited into a $1.2 trillion deficit.

Obviously, today’s economic crisis is vastly more severe than anything Reagan or Clinton faced, thus the timing and scope of tax increases must be carefully calibrated. Over the long term, however, the Republican mantra of “no higher taxes, ever” is as senseless as are claims by some Democrats that we can solve our fiscal gaps simply by soaking the rich. Both spending cuts and revenue increases are required.

One of the oddest aspects of this debate is that the Republican position may not even be good politics -- at least outside safe Republican districts. Public-opinion polls show an increasing acceptance of the need to raise taxes to put the nation’s fiscal house in order. (A large majority of voters would like to see the wealthiest 1 percent raise their hands first.)

The American people are showing that they grasp a fundamental notion that still eludes some of their political leaders. As Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes said, “Taxes are what we pay for a civilized society.” That is well worth the price.