For Republicans on the warpath against Warren Buffett, President Obama's willing poster child for raising taxes on wealthy Americans, this week has been a very bad one. First, new polling confirmed that Americans overwhelmingly support President Obama's jobs plan in general and his proposed gilded-class tax hikes in particular. (On that second point, Republican voters agree.) Then on Thursday, the billionaire called Republicans' bluff and released his $6.9 million tax return and confirmed he paid a lower percentage to Uncle Sam than his secretary. And as it turns out, a new Congressional Research Service study found Buffett's not alone, concluding that a quarter of millionaires in the U.S. pay federal taxes at lower effective rates than a significant portion of middle-income taxpayers. In response, frustrated Republican mythmakers could only accuse Warren Buffett of giving too much to charity.

As Bloomberg News reported, federal tax data show that the need for the Buffett Rule is very real indeed. After IRS data for 2007 revealed that 959 millionaires paid no taxes at all, the new CRS analysis found:

Preferential treatment of investment income and the reduced impact of payroll taxes on high earners lets about 94,500 millionaires pay taxes at a lower rate than 10.4 million "moderate-income taxpayers," representing about 10 percent of those making less than $100,000 a year, according to the report by the non-partisan Congressional Research Service dated Oct. 7.

The findings put the U.S. tax system in conflict with the so-called Buffett Rule, which says households making more than $1 million annually shouldn't pay a smaller share of their income in taxes than middle class families, says the report, which analyzed 2006 Internal Revenue Service data.

And as The Hill reported, the Buffett Rule is aptly named. Responding to demands from Kansas Republican Congressman Tim Huelskamp that he release his tax return (a disclosure Republican presidential candidates thus far have refused to make), Warren Buffett was only happy to comply:

Buffett revealed in a letter sent to Huelskamp that his adjusted gross income was $62,855,038 last year and that he paid $15,300 in payroll taxes, as reported by CNN Money. He also claimed, as he had in an op-ed previously this year, that his federal income tax bill last year came to $6,923,494, or about 17 percent of his $39,814,784 taxable income.

Finding themselves in a hole, Congressional Republicans continued digging. South Dakota Senator John Thune introduced a bill titled "The Buffett Rule Act of 2011" (S.1676), which makes it easier for those who voluntarily wanted to pay higher taxes to do so. Meanwhile, Buffett's House inquisitor Tim Huelskamp declared the billionaire's response "inadequate" and charged:

"What he does disclose may be accurate, but it is incomplete and it fails to explain how he shelters millions of dollars in income from taxation," the lawmaker said in a statement. "It is unprecedented that we would write an entire law based on one man's anecdotes without actual proof. By sheltering millions of dollars of income from taxation, probably through charitable giving, Mr. Buffett demonstrates that he doesn't trust Washington with his own money either."

The Republican accusation that Warren Buffett is giving too much to charity is certain to backfire (even leaving aside that neither the McCains in 2008 nor the Romneys now have provided the information Huelskamp is demanding from Buffett.) For starters, Buffett with Bill Gates is one of the driving forces behind the "Giving Pledge" by which a growing group of American billionaires promise to give away half of their fortunes in their lifetimes. Worse still, Republican presidential candidates including Newt Gingrich and Michele Bachmann have stated that uninsured Americans should turn to charities for their health care. Most damning, Buffett highlights that Republican positions on taxes and charitable giving have it exactly backwards.

Continue reading »

The Powers That Be within the Republican Party are up in arms by the popularity of Rep. Ron Paul, who doesn't exactly exemplify mainstream Republicanism. Republican Publicity Department Fox News Channel must have heard some loud outcries from their disinformed teabaggin' audience about their choice to show the 2010 CPAC crowd booing Ron Paul in discussing his 2011 CPAC straw poll win, possibly because the booing was louder than the 2011 footage. They couldn't be trying to discredit him, could they? So they trotted out B-grade talent Bill Hemmer to apologize:

The situation stemmed from Fox News playing a clip of Paul’s 2010 victory in the CPAC straw poll and incorrectly identifying it as his 2011 victory. While Fox News told Mediaite that it was a mistake, the Paul supporters believed it was done because the 2010 video had more audible booing. Today,[..]Fox News’ Bill Hemmer, who interviewed Paul in the original segment in question, said delivered this statement on air:

“It was clearly a mistake. We used the wrong videotape. There are similarities in the shot between last year’s event and this year. [..]

Ron Paul won both years. However, there were audible boos in 2010 while you heard a lot more cheering this year. It’s an honest mistake. We apologize for the error and we look forward to having Representative Paul back on our show very soon.”

But in fairness to Fox News, they're not the only conservatives having a hard time swallowing the popularity of Ron Paul. Sen. John Thune (R-SD) is convinced that the CPAC straw poll was rigged:

Count this as another sign that John Thune might be in favor of running, after all -- a lengthy defense of his showing in last weekend's straw poll.

Thune told the Argus Leader on Tuesday that he's not dismayed by the findings, which he thinks were "engineered" by supporters of certain candidates.

Scores of Paul supporters, for example, could be seen packing the conference, and few political experts give the libertarian-leaning congressman much a chance of winning the GOP nomination.

"I think that poll is receiving less and less credibility and legitimacy because it's engineered by people who ship folks in for that," Thune said.

Also, Thune pointed out that ballots had to be submitted by Friday afternoon, about the time the senator was on the CPAC stage giving a speech, so many of them probably were cast before people had a chance to hear him.

"The more important issue is the overall reception you get in response to your message," Thune said of his CPAC appearance.

Former Alaska Gov. "Sarah Palin got 3 (percent), so I don't think that is a very good metric to go by.

You read that right. If Half-Governor Word Salad can't get more than than 3% from CPAC, then you know it's not a real poll. Thune appears to be dipping his toe in the Republican Presidential waters as well, so his comments may simply be sour grapes over not enthralling the CPAC crowd as much as Paul.

There's going to be an amusing showdown someday between the teabaggers and the old-line conservatives in the Republican Party. And it's looking like Sarah Palin is going to be the bone of contention:

GOP Insiders Sour On Palin

A poll of GOP insiders suggests that ex-AK Gov. Sarah Palin (R) has little support among the party's professional class -- and maybe that's just how she wants it.

In a survey of 109 party leaders, political professionals and pundits, Palin finished 5th on the list of candidates most likely to win the party's '12 WH nomination. Ex-MA Gov. Mitt Romney (R) was the overwhelming choice of the

Voters were asked to rank 5 candidates in the order of likeliness to capture the GOP nod. The results:

Likely To Win WH'12 Nomination (First place votes)

Ex-MA Gov. Mitt Romney 81 points (62%)

MN Gov. Tim Pawlenty 46 (9%)

Sen. John Thune 38 (12%)

MS Gov. Haley Barbour 28 (6%)

IN Gov. Mitch Daniels 25

Ex-AK Gov. Sarah Palin 25

And it's clear that Palin is aligning herself with the Tea Partiers, eschewing the annual CPAC convention and instead lining herself up to speak at the Tea Party convention instead. Of course, as Dave Weigel reports, it doesn't hurt that the latter is a much better-paying gig:

“I’d speculate that Palin’s making at least $35,000 or $50,000, with $50,000 being more likely” said Eric Odom, executive director of the American Liberty Alliance, which is doing a promotional exchange for the convention. “I mean, Glenn Beck charges $60,000, $70,000 and a private jet.” He wasn’t planning this part of the convention, but he supported the Palin booking and argued that the convention was “as grassroots as it gets.”

Still, no one disputes that Palin is getting a healthy fee for appearing at the conference — and that’s a big difference between this and CPAC.

“We don’t pay honorarium, travel or hotel expenses for any speakers, past or future,” said Lisa de Pasquale, the director of CPAC.

While the cheapest ticket to the Tea Party Convention–one that doesn’t include the final banquet and dinner speech from Palin–costs $349, a basic CPAC ticket costs $175.

Ah, yes, nothing like sucker-punch populism.

In other Palin news, we also learn from Politico that her debate coaches feared they were headed for an "epic debacle." It wasn't, of course, so "not a debacle" is now the standard for a successful GOP performance.

Soon we'll find out if the Senate is really going to buck President Obama on the deal he cut with Big Pharma. I wonder how serious this is:

North Dakota Sen. Byron Dorgan, a member of Democratic leadership, isn't a party to that bargain. "Senator Dorgan intends to offer an amendment to the health reform bill and his expectation is that it will be one of the first amendments considered," his spokesman Justin Kitsch told HuffPost in an e-mail. "Prescription drug importation is an immediate way to put downward pressure on health care costs. It has bipartisan support, and has been endorsed by groups such as the National Federation of Independent Businesses and AARP."

U.S. patients pay far more than the rest of the world for prescription drugs. The Canadian government keeps prices down by using its purchasing power to negotiate for lower rates. Dorgan wants American consumers in on the deal.

A bill to allow re-importation -- S. 1232 - has 30 cosponsors, several Republicans among them, including Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins of Maine, John Thune (S.D.) and David Vitter (La.).

The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the bill would result in $50 billion in direct savings over the next decade, with $10.6 billion of that being savings to the federal government.

[...] The amendment threatens to blow up the deal Baucus and the White House cut with the drug makers. According to the deal, re-importation would not be part of comprehensive health care reform. And if the measure does save $50 billion, that will come from Big Pharma revenue and take it above the $80 billion in cuts it agreed to over ten years. It puts Congress on a collision course with its trade association, the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA).

DOWNLOADS: (1149)

PLAYS: (4352)

Embed

NBC caught a man outside the NH town hall with a gun strapped to his leg. It appears to be legal as long as it's not concealed in Portsmouth. And get this. He's on private property and if the owner of the property consents then he can carry the cannon on his leg. What's weird about that is the private property is a church. A man of GOD thinks it's swell to let this man carry a loaded weapon on church grounds. What would Jesus think?

Carlos: You're saying a guy has a gun in the open and we already know there are concerns about every president 's safety, but certainly this president...and the guy's just being allowed to stay there, is that right?

Allen: The Chief of Police, I just asked him because I was amazed too, but apparently the law allows this man to be here as long as the gun is not concealed, it is registered to him apparently and he's on private property on a church ground...

Do you think anybody would be allowed to be near President Bush who had a huge gun strapped on his leg? I doubt that, but this is the country the right wing wants us to live in. And if Sen. John Thune had his way, it wouldn't matter what NH law said if the state that this man came from did let you walk around with a gun. Unbelievable.

DOWNLOADS: (1374)

PLAYS: (2390)

Embed

I wonder if the South really appreciates Vitter's defense of them since he's been linked to hookers and diapers. I also have to wonder who had a hand in firebombing the car of Stormy Daniels' political adviser. She's Vitter's opponent for his Senate seat. Mr. Family Values and a regular customer of the D.C. Madam, Sen. David Vitter came out in defense of the south after Sen. Voinovich criticized the Republican Party for being way too Southern-fried.

Sen. George V. Voinovich, Ohio Republican, reignited the debate about the direction of the struggling party when he told a newspaper Monday that the biggest problem for Republicans right now is conservative Southerners, particularly Sens. Jim DeMint of South Carolina and Tom Coburn of Oklahoma.

"They get on TV and go 'errrr, errrrr . . .' People hear them and say, 'These people, they're Southerners,'" said Mr. Voinovich, who is not seeking re-election in 2010. "The party's being taken over by Southerners. What they hell have they got to do with Ohio?"

The hooker-loving Vitter shot back with this:

"I'm on the side of conservatives getting back to core conservative values," said Mr. Vitter, Louisiana Republican and member of the Senate Armed Services Committee. "There are a lot of us from the South who hold those values, which I think the party is supposed to be about. We strayed from them in the past few years, and that's why we performed so badly in the national elections."

...Mr. Vitter also criticized Mr. Voinovich for voting last week against a failed amendment sponsored by Mr. Vitter and Sen. John Thune, South Dakota Republican, to expand Americans' ability to carry concealed weapons.

"He's a moderate, really wishy-washy," Mr. Vitter said.

Let's see who has it right---a moderate, or a diaper dandy?

Oh, darn. I was really looking forward to getting on my horse and going cross-country with my trusty six-shooter. Oh well!

Personally, I think the idea was a great one. In a time of constant right-wing hate directed against an African-American president, why wouldn't you want those patriots to take their guns across state lines? Why, a teabagging party, anti-abortion rally or a revolution might break out:

An amendment that would have allowed gun owners to carry their weapons across state lines fell just short of passage Wednesday in a vote that revealed deep divisions among the Senate's Democrats.

Supporters included all but two Republicans and 20 Democrats, but the vote of 58 to 39 in favor fell two short of the 60 needed to defeat a filibuster.

Despite its defeat, the amendment, sponsored by Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.), demonstrated the continuing power of the National Rifle Association and the gun rights issue in Congress. Rather than a setback, those backing the effort consider the vote a sign of strength for the Second Amendment and are planning more gun-related amendments to other legislation throughout the year. Afterward, Thune said he hopes the Senate will "reconsider this important issue" later this year.

It split not only Democrats, many of whom got to the Senate by supporting gun rights, but also the caucus's leadership: Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (Nev.), campaigning for reelection in 2010, voted yes, while his top lieutenants, Sens. Richard J. Durbin (Ill.) and Charles E. Schumer (N.Y.), led the push by liberal Democrats against the measure.

Offered as an amendment to the annual defense authorization bill, the legislation would have allowed people to carry concealed firearms across state lines, provided they "have a valid permit or if, under their state of residence" they "are entitled to do so." It was considered one of the most far-reaching federal efforts ever proposed to expand gun-permitting laws.

From Bowling for Columbine (2002)

There goes the steadfast and dripping-with-integrity GOP and Blue Dog Dems once again. Tomorrow at noon, we get the Thune Amendment--as in John Thune from South Dakota--which assaults both the federalism they cherish in rhetoric and the common sense we cherish post-Enlightenment. The Thune Amendment would make it so a concealed-carry permit handed out in any state would be good in any state that has concealed carry.

So Texas will determine you gun laws. Next up, Utah decides who you can marry, Mississippi decides whether or not you have the death penalty and Kansas decides where church stops and state begins. And to the denizens of those fine states who are progressive, please take no offense, you know I am with you in spirit. I am talking state politics here (I live in Ohio, and wouldn't want to export our gun laws to my state of birth, New York). And this means that if your state is one of 31 that requires some form of gun-safety course before you get to carry a concealed weapon, forget about that. If your state is one of 35 who think that misdemeanors, such as, oh, having previously carried a concealed gun illegally, should prevent you from getting a permit, too bad. If your state thinks habitual alcohol abusers perhaps shouldn't be afforded this right, as 31 states do, so sorry Charlie.

On record against Mr. Thune's legislative loophole are mayors of all stripes, more than 450 of them, or those for whom gun violence is up close and personal, and they are appalled at this Washington GOP power grab. But hey, torture, Gitmo and proposed amendments to ban abortion and gay marriage don't quite live up to the "state's rights" mantra now either, do they...

States and localities should have the right to make their own gun laws. My son should have the right to go into a school where AKs are not present. And a group of wavering Senators need to hear how you feel about this usurping of our rights. Call, be polite, and say hi to these folks. Remind them that you don't want Texas' gun laws...

Those whose minds need to be changed

Bayh (D IN) 202-224-5623

Bennet (D CO) (202) 224-5852

Collins (R ME) (202) 224-2523

Conrad (D ND) (202) 224-2043

Feingold (D WI) 202/224-5323

Hagan (D NC) 202-224-6342

Landrieu (D LA) (202)224-5824

Lincoln (D AR) (202) 224-4843

McCain (R- AZ) (202) 224-2235

McCaskill (D – MO) (202) 224-6154

Pryor (D-AR) (202) 224-2353

Reid (D – NV) 202-224-3542

Snowe (R – ME) (202) 224-5344

Specter (D – PA) 202-224-4254

Udall (D – NM) 202-224-6621

Udall (D – CO) 202-224-5941

Voinovich (R- OH) (202) 224-3353

Warner (D – VA) 202-224-2023

Webb (D –VA) 202-224-4024

Those we must hold:

Kohl (D – WI) (202) 224-5653

Klobuchar (D – MN) 202-224-3244

Nelson (D - FL) 202-224-5274

Two notes: First, the vote is at noon Wednesday (as in tomorrow), so call early and often (and be nice!). Second, full disclosure, I have been hired to work with Mayors Against Illegal Guns (mayorsagainstillegalguns.org) on this effot, and couldn't be happier or more passionate about it.

Update: Keep the calls coming tomorrow morning to weak-kneed Dems and "moderate" Republicans. McCaskill and Specter have already caved.

As I was pleased to note last night in an update, pressure from the Netroots was instrumental in getting Sens. McCaskill (D-MO) and Specter (D-PA) to come out against the Thune Amendment, an assault on federalism, personal security and the proposition that Dems might actually stand up for something.

The vote is at noon. Keep your calls coming, as we are on the cusp of wining this one and saving countless lives, not to mention shutting down a key element of the right-wing machine in DC: The NRA.

Here are your numbers once again:

Those whose minds need to be changed

Bayh (D IN) 202-224-5623

Bennet (D CO) (202) 224-5852

Collins (R ME) (202) 224-2523

Conrad (D ND) (202) 224-2043

Feingold (D WI) 202/224-5323

Hagan (D NC) 202-224-6342

Landrieu (D LA) (202)224-5824

Lincoln (D AR) (202) 224-4843

McCain (R- AZ) (202) 224-2235

Pryor (D-AR) (202) 224-2353

Reid (D – NV) 202-224-3542

Snowe (R – ME) (202) 224-5344

Udall (D – NM) 202-224-6621

Udall (D – CO) 202-224-5941

Voinovich (R- OH) (202) 224-3353

Warner (D – VA) 202-224-2023

Webb (D –VA) 202-224-4024

Those we must hold:

Kohl (D – WI) (202) 224-5653

Klobuchar (D – MN) 202-224-3244

Nelson (D - FL) 202-224-5274

UPDATE: (Nicole) The Thune Amendment, which needed 60 votes to pass, went down 58-39) Thanks to all who called. Nice to see we can beat the NRA.

Full disclosure: I have been hired to work with Mayors Against Illegal Guns on this effort, and couldn't be happier or more passionate about it.

As President Obama finally starts to fight for his economic stimulus bill, roadblock Republicans in the Senate continue to decry the price tag. While John Thune (R-SD) described how many times $1 trillion worth of $100 bills would circle the earth, Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) proclaimed "Americans can't afford a trillion-dollar mistake." Of course, back in 2001, the GOP had no qualms (along with some invertebrate Democrats) in passing George W. Bush's much larger $1.4 trillion tax cut package. And as today's unending sea of red ink and unprecedented upward redistribution of wealth attest, the Republican Party is simply calling for more of the same.

Unlike the 7.6% unemployment rate and $1.2 trillion deficit Barack Obama inherited, George W. Bush arrived at the White House with a federal budget surplus and joblessness at 4.2% - and no mandate. But as every sentient being outside of the mainstream media will recall, Bush promised to slash taxes for the wealthiest Americans, including an end to the estate tax (lovingly rebranded by GOP spinmeisters as the "death tax."). And despite his loss of the popular vote to Al Gore and facing a 50-50 Senate, President Bush and his team made clear there would be no search for common ground with Democrats in pursuit of the 10-year, $1.6 trillion package. As Vice President Dick Cheney put it on December 17, 2000:

"As President-elect Bush has made very clear, he ran on a particular platform that was very carefully developed. It's his program, it's his agenda, and we have no intention at all of backing off of it. It's why we got elected.

So we're going to aggressively pursue tax changes, tax reform, tax cuts, because it's important to do so. [...] The suggestion that somehow, because this was a close election, we should fundamentally change our beliefs, I just think is silly."

For his part, Bush presented the tax cuts as the cure for whatever might ail the economy, both a tasty dessert topping and a floor polish.

Continue reading »