Today's installment of campaign-related news items that won't necessarily generate a post of their own, but may be of interest to political observers:
* The Obama campaign released a new video over the weekend, featuring the president arguing, "We've come too far to turn back now." What I found interesting about the video is that Obama isn't shying away from touting the benefits of health care reform, which is supposed to be a toxic issue for him.
* Mitt Romney has released his tax returns for 2010, and promised to disclose the returns for 2011. When might we see the most recent year? Ed Gillespie told Fox News we'll probably get them by Oct. 15 -- still two months away.
* Romney's super PAC is investing another $10.5 million in ads that lie about the Recovery Act. The ad will air in Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Michigan, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Wisconsin.
* The Obama campaign is launching seven radio ads today, going after the Romney-Ryan budget plan in battleground states, but with tailored messages. In Virginia, the focus will be on infrastructure; in North Carolina, the ads will focus on veterans' benefits; in New Hampshire, the audience will hear about cuts to Pell Grants; in Nevada, voters will hear about opposition to foreclosure relief; etc.
* Romney picked up another $7 million through high-priced fundraisers over the weekend.
* Louisiana has six U.S. House seats, but Democrats are only fielding candidates in three of them. That's fewer than the Libertarians.
* And the National Republican Congressional Committee has reserved additional time for fall TV advertising in 12 congressional districts totaling over $9.6 million. Most intend to protect vulnerable freshmen.
Leave a Comment:
"Ed Gillespie told Fox News we'll probably get them by Oct. 15 -- still two months away."
Ah yes, the infamous October surprise!
The Presidential Debates are scheduled for Oct. 3rd, 16th, and 22nd.....shall we start a pool as to what day they'll be released?
And now , just in time for trick or treat...
Actually, Steve, Willard's only released PART of his return for 2010 - he declined to disclose to us pesky peons of the public his FBAR and 990-T attachments, both required by the IRS, which contain crucial (and thus, still undisclosed) details re his foreign bank accounts (e.g. Swiss, Cayman, etc.).
For example, these forms would show the maximum amounts held in each such account for the taxable year, whereas the forms released only show the fact of each such accounts existence, and the closing balance. If there were a substantial difference between those values, it might indicate payments made to the IRS as part of the amnesty program for tax cheats, making it all the more suspicious that he continues to refuse to disclose these documents which are part of his 2010 tax return.
This fact needs to be regularly hammered home!
I demand to see the long-form worth-certificates!
Vulture/Voucher 2012
Proving Two Rights DO Make a Wrong!
;-)
and may I be the 216th to say,,, That's a lie.. They won't be released at all...
And fortunately for our country the republicans do not all seem to be ok with that.. Transparency, Hell No!
Someone explain to me why Louisiana voted repukeagan right after huricane Katrina.
Everybody there is on the republican dole? and we hate big government...
People need to understand that Ryan's goals go far beyond just "reforming" Medicare. This is only the first step in killing the program entirely.
Republicans are very patient. They know they can't simply abolish SS, Medicare, and Medicaid. Instead, they're working to kill those programs in steps, even if it takes many years.
One of the first ways to strangle Medicare is to "divide and conquer." Creating different categories of beneficiaries, with some getting more than others, is a textbook strategy for breeding contempt. Once the seeds of disunity are sown, it won't take long to bring the program down.
Anyone 55 or over who believes that their Medicare benefits will be sacrosanct under the Ryan/Romney plan is naive and foolish.
It won't take long after a President Romney signs the Ryan Medicare "fixes" into law before people under 55 (and some over that age with a "kill Medicare" agenda) begin criticizing those "greedy, privileged, welfare-grabbing seniors" with their "Cadillac Medicare benefits."
Republican leaders, the big insurance companies, folks like the Koch Brothers, and the Chamber of Commerce will be among those driving this bus. The campaign against continuing benefits for those over 65 will be relentless and well funded.
Political support is all that keeps the program going now. There's no contractual "right" to Medicare benefits.
If I set the "over/under" at 30 minutes from the time "Romney/Ryan Vouchercare" becomes law before the vilification of those getting traditional Medicare benefits begins, would anybody take the "over?"
I know that Paul Ryan says that everybody 55 and older will continue to see Medicare the same as normal.
But:
As I see it, he says that 10 years from now all contributions to the Medicare fund will cease as we move to the private plan.
Anyone that understands how business, non profits and yes, even government stays solvent is that the income must at least equal the expenditures. If there is no more income, and the expenditures continue, it seems obvious to me that in a matter of months, the system will be bankrupt. If the system is bankrupt, the seniors will be left with nothing. If Ryan and Romney are successful in repealing the Affordable Care Act the provision of non discrimination will also be repealed. That means that pre existing conditions can keep us from getting insurance. ALMOST EVERYONE 65 AND OLDER HAS AT LEAST 1 PRE EXISTING CONDITION! Insurance would be unavailable to us at any price.
Another piece is that it will cost about $6500 a year. That is very near what many Social Security benefits total for the year. That means that the insurance would cost 100% of their income. The average Social Security benefit is about $12,000 a year. That places the burden at 50% of total income. I think that many in the media, as well as the politicians have been in the 6 to 7 figure incomes for so long that they feel that "I can afford $6500 a year, but I would not like it" as the standard. What if it took 50% to 100% of your income? That is not an inconvenience. That is a disaster!
I hope that someone understands how important it is to use seniors 55 and older.
Over the weekend I heard the statement again that CEO's want something settled on the budget and tax code so that they have certainty and can move on. Why don't we give them that certainty now? Pass a balanced bill like Obama's jobs bill? Pass it now. Let us all move on.
No, I haven't been asleep for 2 years. But I would really like the media to push this, since the comment always appears when the GOP promotes its budget. "Businesses want this settled." So let's settle it.
The Democrats have already compromised. It's the GOP's turn to do some compromising. I'm sick and tired of everyone claiming that government is an evil that needs to be eliminated. We can't eliminate government any more than we should spend like crazy people.
What we need is a balanced approach that everyone can live with. We need the entire country to believe that we're overspending, and that we need to reign that back. But we can't lurch about, cutting 20% of taxes and just wiping out programs. We don't need drastic measures. We need something intelligent. We need both houses of government to accept a compromise.
We also need the left to go left again. I refuse to listen to this rubbish about killing government. We need good schools, etc., and we need to reign in costs. The super-rich need to pay more in taxes. We might all need to pay more in taxes.
It's the GOP's turn to compromise. I'd drop every story about abortion and R's tax returns if we could talk about getting our leaders to compromise. And the GOP is responsible for holding down the economy. They're standing on the throat. They need to compromise.
Who voted for the Obama budget? No one. So, who's plan is more radical?
You do realize that the president doesn't pass a budget, don't you? That's the responsibility of Congress.
MP:
You're correct, the president can't pass a budget. That still doesn't excuse the fact Congress rejected a proposed Obama budget. It doesn't excuse the Senate hasn't passed a budget. .We are coming up to the financial cliff. Debt, deficits, taxes, and sequistation.
Obama has offered nothing. Leaders lead. He has said it's a Congressional issue.
I know that Paul Ryan says that everybody 55 and older will continue to see Medicare the same as normal.
But:
As I see it, he says that 10 years from now all contributions to the Medicare fund will cease as we move to the private plan.
Anyone that understands how business, non profits and yes, even government stays solvent is that the income must at least equal the expenditures. If there is no more income, and the expenditures continue, it seems obvious to me that in a matter of months, the system will be bankrupt. If the system is bankrupt, the seniors will be left with nothing. If Ryan and Romney are successful in repealing the Affordable Care Act the provision of non discrimination will also be repealed. That means that pre existing conditions can keep us from getting insurance. ALMOST EVERYONE 65 AND OLDER HAS AT LEAST 1 PRE EXISTING CONDITION! Insurance would be unavailable to us at any price.
Another piece is that it will cost about $6500 a year. That is very near what many Social Security benefits total for the year. That means that the insurance would cost 100% of their income. The average Social Security benefit is about $12,000 a year. That places the burden at 50% of total income. I think that many in the media, as well as the politicians have been in the 6 to 7 figure incomes for so long that they feel that "I can afford $6500 a year, but I would not like it" as the standard. What if it took 50% to 100% of your income? That is not an inconvenience. That is a disaster!
I hope that someone understands how important it is to us "seniors 55 and older".