Saturday, October 6, 2012

Mitt Romney's Favorite Coal Company Forces Workers To Donate to Radical Anti-American Conservatives






Mitt Romney's Favorite Coal Company Forces Workers To Donate to Radical Anti-American Conservatives
“You’ve got a great boss,” Mitt Romney proclaimed to a crowd of coal miners at a campaign rally in August.

He was referring to Robert Murray, the CEO of Murray Energy, one of the largest coal mining operators in the country.

For Romney, that statement was particularly true. According to accounts from multiple coal miners, employees were forced to attend the event without pay. “Just for the record, if we did not go, we knew what would happen,” said one miner in a letter to a local radio station. Weeks later, Romney’s campaign featured images of the coal miners in a pro-coal ad. (The Obama campaign hit back this week with an ad claiming Romney used coal workers as “props”).

But that was just the tip of the iceberg. An expose from New Republic Senior Editor Alec MacGillis shows that Murray Energy is doing far more than requiring employees to spend uncompensated time at campaign events — the company is actually requiring them to donate to GOP candidates like Romney:

    The accounts of two sources who have worked in managerial positions at the firm, and a review of letters and memos to Murray employees, suggest that coercion may also explain Murray staffers’ financial support for Romney. Murray, it turns out, has for years pressured salaried employees to give to the Murray Energy political action committee (PAC) and to Republican candidates chosen by the company. Internal documents show that company officials track who is and is not giving. The sources say that those who do not give are at risk of being demoted or missing out on bonuses, claims Murray denies.

    The Murray sources, who requested anonymity for fear of retribution, came forward separately. But they painted similar pictures of the fund-raising operation. “There’s a lot of coercion,” says one of them. “I just wanted to work, but you feel this constant pressure that, if you don’t contribute, your job’s at stake. You’re compelled to do this whether you want to or not.” Says the second: “They will give you a call if you’re not giving. .?.?. It’s expected you give Mr. Murray what he asks for.”

This spring, Murray organized a fundraiser for Mitt Romney, eventually bundling more than a million and half dollars for the candidate. According to the New Republic, employees of Murray Energy have donated more than $1.4 million to Republican candidates — with $120,000 raised for Romney this campaign season alone.

While employees say Murray does not explicitly force them to make donations, he makes it very clear what could happen if they don’t contribute some of their salary to Republicans. “We have been insulted by every salaried employee who does not support our efforts,” he wrote in one 2012 letter obtained by the New Republic.

And in a 2011 letter to company managers, Murray alluded to potential consequences if employees did not donate: “Please see that our salaried employees ‘step up,’ for their own sakes and those of their employees.”

Republicans have always viewed the American worker as a sheep that is here to do its bidding be be grateful. They do not have the view of real Americans that a good business model is a partnership between labor and management. Some may remember that Murray hates regulations - so much so they were and still are willing to sacrifice the lives of workers to squeeze every last dollar they can out of the work of miners - regardless of the deadly consequences.

Mitt Romney Misled the Middle Class About his Tax Plan


Republicans are pro free market right? Revealed: Romney’s Bain Capital Invested in Grotesque Chinese Sweatshop, Detailed at Boca Raton Fundraiser

Republicans like to paint Romney as an entrepreneur whose activities at Bain Capital have benefited Americans. In a campaign full of whoppers, that’s one of the biggest lies of all. Economist Paul Davidson recently pointed out the truth on AlterNet [3]: “Romney has spent his career offshoring and outsourcing American production processes -- and associated jobs -- to countries like China where human labor is valued in the market at a very low wage rate.” The sub-human conditions at these production facilities represent things that Americans are strongly opposed to: child abuse, squalor, forced overtime, and peanuts for pay.

Romney’s penchant for bragging about his business activities at fundraisers helps underscore just how vile his brand of capitalism really is. While CEO of Bain, Romney invested in a Chinese sweatshop which he appears to be describing in detail [4] at the very same Boca Raton fundraising event where he made his infamous case that nearly half of all Americans are freeloaders.

A report recently released by the Institute for Global Labor and Human Rights reveals that while Romney was deeply invested at a firm called Global-Tech, low pay and horrific conditions were status quo at its Chinese appliance factory.

Was Romney aware? Let’s take a look at the presidential hopeful's own words:

    “When I was back in my private equity days, we went to China to buy a factory there. It employed about 20,000 people. And they were almost all young women between the ages of about 18 and 22 or 23. They were saving for potentially becoming married. And they work in these huge factories, they made various uh, small appliances. And uh, as we were walking through this facility, seeing them work, the number of hours they worked per day, the pittance they earned, living in dormitories with uh, with little bathrooms at the end of maybe 10, 10 room, rooms. And the rooms they have 12 girls per room. Three bunk beds on top of each other. You've seen, you've seen them? (Oh…yeah, yeah!) And, and, and around this factory was a fence, a huge fence with barbed wire and guard towers. And, and, we said gosh! I can't believe that you, you know, keep these girls in! They said, no, no, no. This is to keep other people from coming in. Because people want so badly to come work in this factory that we have to keep them out.”

Charles Kermaghan, director of the Institute for Global Labour and Human Rights, asks: “Does Mr. Romney seriously believe that young men and women in China are racing to climb over fortress-like walls topped with barbed wire, just to get a poorly paid job at Global-Tech? Or is it possible that the barbed wire and armed guards are meant to lock the Chinese workers in and strip them of their legal rights?”

Like everything else Republicans believe in, when you get down to the details, it is a sick twisted view of what normal patriotic Americans believe in.







Thursday, October 4, 2012

How Did Romney Supposedly Win The Debate? By Being Himself, One of the Most Morally Corrupt Liars in Politics






















How Did Romney Supposedly Win The Debate? By Being Himself, One of the Most Morally Corrupt Liars in Politics

Political reporters and pundits lean heavily on the horse race method of coverage, which has badly hurt Mitt Romney for most of the campaign. Last night it helped him. Romney was forceful and articulate and dodged his association with almost all the most unpopular aspects of his platform. But his success at doing so was built upon two demonstrable untruths.

The most important was taxes. Romney asserted, “I cannot reduce the burden paid by high-income Americans.” Let me explain how this is untrue even by his own campaign’s accounting.

Obama badly flubbed this topic by allowing Romney to change the baseline of the discussion. Romney is promising to extend all the Bush tax cuts and refuses to accept even slightly higher revenue as part of a deficit deal. On top of that, he is proposing a huge, regressive income tax rate cut that would reduce revenue by an additional $5 trillion, but promises to make up for it by closing tax deductions. Obama directed his fire almost entirely at the additional tax cut, leaving mostly untouched, until the end, Romney’s pledge to never bargain away any of the Bush tax cuts.

Obama’s case was sound. The Tax Policy Center has shown that the stated parameters of Romney’s plan don’t add up — even under favorable assumptions, there are not enough tax deductions for the rich to close to pay for the rate cuts. Romney has disputed this and cited a series of studies that, in various ways, change the parameters of the Tax Policy Center study. Some of these studies find that it could be theoretically possible that Romney could cut rates and, by closing loopholes, do so without losing revenue or raising taxes on the middle class — if you lower the bar on who is middle class from $250,000 to $100,000, or count the repeal of Obamacare to help pay for the tax cuts, or use really wildly optimistic growth assumptions.

None of these studies back up Romney’s claim that he won’t reduce taxes on the rich. They confirm that he will reduce taxes on the rich. They merely suggest that he could make up the revenue some other way than taxing the middle class or increasing the deficit — that the economic growth will help the tax cuts for the rich pay for themselves, or that some of the lost revenue can be made up for by cutting off subsidies for the uninsured. Romney flat-out misstated his position.

The other issue was health care. Romney has promised to protect health insurance for people with preexisting conditions who maintain continuous coverage. That caveat is vital, because that right has existed since 1996. It’s a very minor protection. Phrasing his promise this way has allowed Romney to make a promise that sounds like he would keep Obamacare’s protections for people with preexisting coverage without committing himself to anything at all (except, I suppose, keeping in place a 1996 law that didn’t do much).

At the debate last night, Romney didn’t phrase his promise in this misleading-but-true fashion. He promised, “preexisting conditions are covered under my plan.” That is not true. He dropped the legalistic mumbo-jumbo that renders his promise meaningless and promised something. But his plan doesn’t do that. And his adviser Eric Fehrnstrom, asked after the debate if Romney was really promising to cover people with preexisting conditions, admitted that he isn’t. (“With respect to pre-existing conditions, what Governor Romney has said is for those with continuous coverage, he would continue to make sure that they receive their coverage.”)

Romney won the debate in no small part because he adopted a policy of simply lying about his policies.

More here, Debate fact check

10:20 — Romney left his heart in Zurich: Romney tells Obama, “The place you put your money is a pretty good indication of where your heart is.” The obvious rejoinder, ready-made for a DNC attack, is that Romney’s heart must be in the Cayman Island, Bermuda or Switzerland, where Romney has put his money.

10:10 — “The same f*cking bill”: Romney says his healthcare plan in Massachusetts is very different from Obamacare. The guy who designed both the plans calls them “the same f*cking bill.”

10:00 — Romney sees death panels: Romney comes dangerously close to invoking death panels, saying Obamacare has “a board that will tell people what kind of treatment they’re going to get.” He’s referring to IPAB, a board of doctors, hospital officials and government officials who try to find best practices to reduce the cost of Medicare (and only Medicare — no one else’s healthcare — which is already a government plan). IPAB does not decide on individual cases, is subject to congressional oversight and is legally prohibited from rationing care. In August, Paul Ryan told Florida seniors Obamacare has a “rationing board.”

9:45 — Obamacare still doesn’t cut Medicare: Romney revived one of the most repeated falsehoods of the campaign – that Obamacare cut over $700 billion from Medicare. It’s not true, and Paul Ryan’s budget included the same cuts; Ryan and almost every other Republican in the House voted for them. Obamacare did cut funds from Medicare, but from providers, not beneficiaries. The actuaries in charge of the program say the savings will actually extend the life of the program and experts say the cuts won’t affect benefits.

9:40 — NFIB fib:  Romney uses as a cudgel against Obama’s tax plan a study from the National Federation of Independent Business. The NFIB sounds like an anodyne business group, but like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce it is actually a very partisan Republican group funded mostly by large corporations, not small businesses.

There is more at the link. Conservatives and the conservative movement is based on the Big Lie so of course they are thrilled with Romney's performance. And that is what it was, Mitt the snake oil salesman conning America into believing falsehoods that are easily checked. Republicans learned nothing from the economic collapse their policies caused or the Iraq debacle. Romney plans to increase the too big too fail economic pyramid and his foreign policy team is stacked for former Bush advisers. Some people - conservative Republicans - just get a thrill from abusing America and they'll keep doing so until Americans wise up and call them out on their dangerous agenda. 

Mitt Romney's top economic adviser Greg Mankiw said the "offshoring" of American jobs was a good thing.

Mitt Romney, who lambasts the "failures" of government-backed mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, profits from investments in the firms.

Mitt Romney said that catching bin Laden would be "insignificant" and it's "not worth moving heaven and earth."

Mitt Romney pledged to expand a Bush-Era policy of permitting doctors to deny women access to contraceptives.

Mitt Romney said he supported the Ryan Republican budget plan that would effectively end Medicare.

Paul Ryan embraces the extreme philosophy of sex cultist Ayn Rand.

Paul Ryan wants to raises taxes on the middle class, cut them for millionaires

Paul Ryan thinks Social Security is a “ponzi scheme.”

Paul Ryan supports $40 billion in coporate welfare subsides for big oil.

Tuesday, October 2, 2012

Mitt Romney's New Attack Ad is Another Lie (Medicare) Filled With Empty Promises


















Mitt Romney's New Attack Ad is Another Lie (Medicare) Filled With Empty Promises

The largest and clearest point of distinction in the presidential race is universal access to health insurance. If President Obama wins reelection, his law to provide access to the uninsured will go forward. If Mitt Romney is elected, it will be gutted, and Medicaid — the bare-bones coverage plan for the most desperately poor and sick — will face enormous additional cuts.

Commonwealth Fund has released a report comparing the stark choice. Estimating conservatively, Romney’s plan — to the extent that the report was able to piece it together — would increase the uninsured population to about 72 million, while Obama’s would cut it to 26 million (his plan does not cover illegal immigrants.) Probably more telling is Romney’s official campaign reaction:

    “Under ObamaCare, Americans have seen their insurance premiums increase, small businesses are facing massive tax increases, and seniors will have reduced access to Medicare services,” Ryan Williams, a Romney spokesman, wrote in an email to POLITICO. “The American people did not want this law, our country cannot afford this law, and when Mitt Romney becomes president he will repeal it and replace it with common-sense, patient-centered reforms that strengthen our health care system.”

Note that the statement is almost entirely an attack on Obamacare, with a brief clause at the end vaguely promising something good will take its place. But that something requires resources. Most people lacking insurance are either sick or have a sick family member or they're poor. If you want to cover them, you need to cough up some money. Obamacare undertook the massive political heavy lift of providing those resources, and that’s what Romney attacks — he included higher taxes on “small businesses” (i.e., people making more than $250,000 a year) and “reduced access to Medicare services” (i.e., cuts in reimbursements to Medicare providers, as a trade-off for providing them with 30 million new paying customers.)

Romney’s budget is premised on denying the government enough resources to fund any kind of universal health insurance program. His promise to cut tax rates by 20 percent would reduce tax revenue well below current levels. But even if you accept Romney’s arithmetically impossible claim that he can cut tax rates by 20 percent and raise the same tax revenue as the tax code does right now (and without raising taxes on the middle class), merely holding revenue at current, Bush-set levels would make any kind of universal coverage impossible.

Both campaigns describe the election as a stark choice, and this is correct. It’s a choice between universal health coverage for legal citizens and preserving the Bush tax cuts.

Only the elite like Romney think they people who make $250k plus per year are middle-class. Half the country has a household income under $52k. If someone making even $150k per year wants to cry that they're struggling, they need to learn some personal finance and spending discipline.


Romney Budget Proposals Would Necessitate Very Large Cuts in Medicaid, Education, Health Research and Other Programs

Sunday, September 30, 2012

Romney's Favorite Myth Exposed: Economic Growth Isn’t About ‘Makers’ vs. ‘Takers’


















Romney's Favorite Myth Exposed: Economic Growth Isn’t About ‘Makers’ vs. ‘Takers’

The release of the video in which Governor Romney denigrated the 47 percent of households who don't pay income taxes has set in motion a silly debate about who pays taxes and who doesn't. This debate is a distraction from the real issues because paying taxes and receiving government benefits like Social Security and Medicare are less important in terms of income distribution than the way the government structures the economy.

In the last three decades the economy has been restructured in ways that have led to a massive upward redistribution of income. Serious public debate should be focused on these mechanisms.

The Impact of Trade Policy

To start with the most obvious, trade policy has been deliberately structured to place U.S. manufacturing workers in direct competition with low paid workers in the developing world. The predicted and actual outcome of this policy has been the elimination of millions of manufacturing jobs and wage depression of a large segment of the workforce as displaced manufacturing workers are forced to compete for jobs in retail, restaurants and other sectors of the economy.

The effect of this trade policy is further enhanced by the decision to have an overvalued dollar (aka a "strong dollar") that dates from when Robert Rubin became Treasury Secretary in 1996. An overvalued dollar hurts those in sectors that are exposed to trade, while benefiting professionals like doctors and lawyers who rely on professional restrictions to largely insulate themselves from international competition.

About Those Subsidies

While trade is a huge deal, it is far from the only story. The government gives $60 billion a year in subsidies to the large Wall Street banks in the form of "too big to fail" insurance. This means that the banks can borrow at lower interest rates because creditors assume that the government will bail them out if the bank gets into trouble.

Patent monopolies on prescription drugs transfer close to $270 billion a year from patients to the drug industry. Almost all drugs would sell for $5-$10 per prescription without this form of protection from the government.

Don't Forget About Interest Rates

The Federal Reserve Board is also an incredibly important force in redistributing income upward. As a matter of policy it will raise interest rates to slow the economy and throw people out of work, if it believes that inflation might rise above its 2.0 percent target. Higher unemployment puts downward pressure on the wages of workers in general. By contrast, inflation poses a threat to banks and other lenders, hence the Fed's obsession with ensuring that the inflation rate remains very low.

The structure and enforcement of laws around union organizing and strikes can also be very important in determining the distribution of income. While Canada is very similar to the United States in many respects, more than 30 percent of its workforce is represented by a union. This compares to just 10 percent in the United States. The main difference is that Canada's labor laws make it much easier to organize a union. Since unionized workers tend to get higher wages, the decline in unionization since the 70s has likely been an important factor in depressing wages.

The New U.S. Economy

These policies and others that have been put in place over the last three decades lie behind the enormous upward redistribution of wealth that has taken place over this period. Their impact dwarfs the impact of the tax increases on the wealthy that are being proposed by President Obama.

A presidential campaign is a great time to have a national debate over these policies. Unfortunately, we seem destined to have a silly debate over whether poor people should be paying more in taxes.

Governor Romney may have badly damaged his campaign with his videotaped remarks. Unfortunately the rest of us will be the big losers if his comments preempt a serious discussion of the upward redistribution we have seen over the last three decades.

If Romney knows so much about business and economics how come he thinks it is just 47% of the population that gets some kind of government benefits including companies like Bain.

What liberal media? CNN Lets Neo-Nazi Dinesh D'Souza Peddle Conspiracy Theory That Obama Is "Anti-American". Why is there this strong current in journalism not to call people out on the most outlandish lies.

Sen Scott Brown (R-MS) is nothing more than an ATM machine for the too big too fail banks. I guess that is what makes brown such a "nice" guy, he is so willing to bend over for special interests.

Friday, September 28, 2012

First Romney Exploited The Deaths of U.S. Diplomats, Now He Is Exploiting Veterans: Falsely Claims Pentagon Cuts Will Impact Veterans




































First Romney Exploited The Deaths of U.S. Diplomats, Now He Is Exploiting Veterans: Falsely Claims Pentagon Cuts Will Impact Veterans

In a speech to the American Legion today, Mitt Romney leveled fresh criticism against President Obama, accusing his administration of cutting the benefits of veterans who are returning from Iraq and Afghanistan and going so far as to call plans to cut the Veterans Affairs Department budget a “crisis.”:

    Romney charged that the defense budget cuts would affect services for veterans, including the men and women returning from conflict overseas who need psychological counseling. Romney invoked the rising number of suicides – “This is a crisis,” he declared – as he sharpened his attack on the Obama administration’s proposed spending cuts.

But Romney’s claim — that veterans’ care will be negatively impacted by sequestration — is not grounded in reality. Earlier this month, the White House announced that virtually all of the Veterans Affairs Department budget will be exempt from mandatory cuts if and when sequestration goes into effect in January 2013. The only exception, according to VA Secretary Eric Shinseki, would be possible cuts to administrative costs. That means health care, vocational, and education services will remain fully funded while cuts are made elsewhere within the Department of Defense, despite Mitt Romney’s claims to the contrary.

Of course, if Romney were actually concerned about the possibility of losing funding for the Veterans Affairs Department, he probably wouldn’t have embraced Paul Ryan or his budget, which could lead to reductions in veterans’ benefits.

Previously the morally corrupt and defiantly unpatriotic Romney exploited the deaths of U.S. diplomats to score political points. Is there no sleazy depths to which sleazy scumbag Mitt Romney will not sink to become king of America.

Funny how lazy no good liberals have to pay to feed fake-patriot red-staters, Red States Outpace Blue States in Income Growth — Thanks to Food Stamps

Romnesia: The Ability of the Very Rich to Forget the Context in Which They Made Their Money


Wednesday, September 26, 2012

Paul Ryan Has Been Trying To Sell Himself as Moderate, Old Video Shows He Is a Radical Conservative on Social Security





Paul Ryan Has Been Trying To Sell Himself as Moderate, Old Video Shows He Is a Radical Conservative

When they booed [5] Paul Ryan at the American Association of Retired Persons last week, most people didn't even know he called [6] Medicare and Social Security "third party or socialist-based systems." Or that he said [7] he wants to privatize them in order to "break the back" of a "collectivist philosophy."

On recently transcribed remarks from an audio recording, Ryan said his ideas and values were shaped by an extremist author who thought humanity must "reject the morality of altruism," and that his opinions on monetary policy are guided by a fictional speech which says "the words 'to make money' hold the essence of human morality."

That author says the "collectivist philosophy" Ryan ascribes to Social Security and Medicare is a "looters' credo." By that reckoning, anyone who receives assistance from the government -- including disabled combat veterans or impoverished children -- is a "looter."

"Seniors are looters." Wonder how that would have gone over at the AARP?"Disabled veterans are looters." How would that play at the local VFW?

This recording confirms that the GOP's Vice Presidential candidate is the most politically extreme major-party candidate in living memory. His views have already drawn the opposition of Catholic theologians, as well as advocates for lower-income people, the middle class, seniors, the disabled and children.

If those views were better known, they'd also alienate independents, Democrats and seniors, as well as most Republicans and Tea Party members.

1] http://www.ourfuture.org
[2] http://www.alternet.org/authors/richard-rj-eskow
[3] http://www.alternet.org/hot-news-views/paul-ryan-called-ending-social-security-speech-ayn-rand-fans
[4] http://www.alternet.org/hot-news-views/paul-ryan-minorities-victimhood-has-gotten-them-nothing
[5] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7DvaR2CuvDQ&feature=youtu.be
[6] http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/09/paul-ryan-ayn-rand-divorce.php
[7] http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/09/20/1134273/-Paul-Ryan-Laughs-about-Destroying-privatizing-Social-Security

As usual there is some massive hypocrisy in Ryan's wacko world view, as a teen he collected Social Security death benefits that allowed him to go to college.

Republican William Jacobson of Cornell University is a morally degenerate liar, Elizabeth Warren did not do anything illegal or unethical. No, Elizabeth Warren Did Not Engage in the Unauthorized Practice of Law

Paul Ryan vs. The Stench

Though Ryan had already decided to distance himself from the floundering Romney campaign, he now feels totally uninhibited. Reportedly, he has been marching around his campaign bus, saying things like, “If Stench calls, take a message” and “Tell Stench I’m having finger sandwiches with Peggy Noonan and will text him later.”

Even before the stench article appeared, there was a strong sign that Ryan was freeing himself from the grips of the Romney campaign. It began after his disastrous appearance on Friday before AARP in New Orleans. Ryan delivered his remarks in the style dictated by his Romney handlers: Stand behind the lectern, read the speech as written and don’t stray from the script.

Ryan brought his 78-year-old mother with him and introduced her to the audience, which is usually a sure crowd pleaser.

But when Ryan began talking about repealing “Obamacare” because he said it would harm seniors, one woman in the crowd shouted, “Lie!” Another shouted “Liar!” and the crowd booed Ryan lustily.

Underneath Ryan is not the serious thoughtful wonk advertised, he is a wacky repeat of Sarah Palin.

Monday, September 24, 2012

Mitt Romney Thinks It Is Fair That He Does Not Work For His Income and Pays Lower Taxes Than The Average Working Class American







Mitt Romney Thinks It Is Fair That He Does Not Work For His Income and Pays Lower Taxes Than The Average Working Class American

Mitt Romney told CBS’s 60 Minutes that it’s “fair” for him to pay a tax rate of just 14.1 percent on his investment income of $20 million, a lower rate than someone earning $50,000 a year in wage income:

    SCOTT PELLEY (HOST): Now, you made on your investments, personally, about $20 million last year. And you paid 14 percent in federal taxes. That’s the capital gains rate. Is that fair to the guy who makes $50,000 and paid a higher rate than you did?

    ROMNEY: It is a low rate. And one of the reasons why the capital gains tax rate is lower is because capital has already been taxed once at the corporate level, as high as 35 percent.

    PELLEY: So you think it is fair?

    ROMNEY: Yeah, I think it’s the right way to encourage economic growth, to get people to invest, to start businesses, to put people to work.

There is little economic evidence to support Romney’s argument that higher capital gains and dividend rates will discourage investment. As Paul Krugman has pointed out, the current very low rate of 15 percent, wasn’t enacted until 2003. Between 1986 and 1997 “long-term capital gains were taxed at close to 30 percent” and under President Clinton, the rate sat at 20 percent, while dividends were treated as regular income. “I have worked with investors for 60 years and I have yet to see anyone — not even when capital gains rates were 39.9 percent in 1976-77 — shy away from a sensible investment because of the tax rate on the potential gain,” Warren Buffet explains.

Indeed, investors continued to invest, despite the higher rates, and throughout the Clinton period, the nation actually saw stronger investment. So it’s difficult to take Romney’s argument seriously — both because history shows that the wealthy don’t need a capital gains rate 20 points below the top marginal income tax rate (currently 35 percent) in order to invest their money and because Romney himself believes he paid too little in investment taxes, choosing to forfeit $1.8 million in charitable deductions.

Romney's contribution to charity are also kind of a inside joke. Most of it goes to the Mormon Church, which operates more like a corporation than a charity.

Hey Romney & Ryan: This is what you get when you threaten Seniors Medicare, Social Security

Why Are Anti-American Conservative Bloggers Obsessed With Julia