This was the best birthday present I have ever received.



And over this past weekend, the Democratic party took the first steps to becoming the first major party in American politics to fully endorse marriage equality in its platform.

The Democratic Party platform drafting committee approved on Sunday language endorsing same-sex marriage in addition to other pro-LGBT positions as part of the Democratic Party platform, according to two sources familiar with the drafting process.

Retiring gay Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), who sits on the committee, told the Washington Blade on Monday that the 15-member panel unanimously backed the inclusion of a marriage equality plank after a national hearing over the weekend in Minneapolis, in which several witnesses testified in favor of such language.

On Wednesday, the Senate voted 51-48 to extend the tax breaks for 98% of American income earners (bill text). At the same time, it also rejected a Republican effort to extend the tax giveaways for the rich, which got only 45 votes. Before I go any further on why this is a brilliant maneuver by Barack Obama and Harry Reid, here are a couple of little noticed things you need to notice from Wednesday's votes:.

• First, the Democratic plan - the plan the Senate passed - includes not just extending the 2001 and 2003 tax rates for 98% of Americans, but also an extension of the tax breaks for the middle class that President Obama instituted: the expanded Earned Income and Child tax credits, and the American Opportunity Tax Credit. These are targeted tax credits for the middle class that provide true relief at a time of economic turbulence.
  
• Second, and conversely, it would be a mistake to think that the Republican plan would have kept everyone's tax rates the same. The Republican plan would only extend the Bush tax rates for all taxpayers, resulting in an actual tax increase for middle class families as they would let the targeted Obama tax cuts expire.

Some of us weren't surprised when Romney campaign aides went to British newspapers and bragged about their (or maybe America's) "Anglo-saxon" heritage which Barack Obama "doesn't appreciate." The Romney campaign issued a non-denial denial of the quote. "If anyone said that, they weren't reflecting the views of Gov. Romney or anyone inside the campaign," said campaign spokeswoman Amanda Henneberg.

This is what is known as a dog whistle. You send out campaign aides to say racist comments to the media - in a foreign country no less (and to boot, the country our founders rebelled against) - make sure they are anonymous, and when there is inevitably a firestorm, you have plausible deniability. No matter, the message got through to the people it needed to go to. Right wing racists know you're on their side, and you know, that mulatto is wrecking America. See, this way, you can get the racists riled up without scaring off the the broad middle.

The denial from the Romney campaign doesn't make any sense. His campaign advisers didn't say anything to the British newspaper that Mitt Romney hasn't himself either said or signaled. For example, Mitt Romney's campaign has an answer to all the uppity calls for him to release his tax returns, and while he hasn't put it in exactly these words, it is, essentially, "Shut up, n*gger."

Life has intruded the past couple of weeks, so my essays have been scant. But that doesn't mean that I've been ignoring the news. The political war of the past few weeks has done nothing but strengthen the argument I made in this essay a few weeks ago. Besides being a forceful Commander-in-Chief, President Obama and his team in Chicago have organized a pummeling of Mitt Romney and the GOP not usually seen coming from Democrats. They've allowed the Republicans to commit their forces in one desperate attack after another, and then moved in for the kill. November is a long way away, but the evidence of the past month shows that the Obama campaign has the GOP's number, and is fighting political battles on the fields of its choice, to its advantage, while not allowing Romney and the Republicans to gain any firm footing.

What's hit me especially hard these past couple of weeks, though, is just how existential is the choice we face this November. Maybe 40 years ago, when there was a general consensus between the two parties on the role of government, brought about by the New Deal, people were merely voting as to which of the parties could better manage that consensus at any given time. That started to change with Richard Nixon's "Southern strategy", where the GOP threw its lot in with the ghosts of racism and white anger at black civil rights. It proceeded apace with Ronald Reagan, adding the Christian right wing into the mix, as well as a no-longer-disguised fealty to anything demanded by multinational corporations. And then with George W. Bush neo-imperialism became part of the GOP manifesto, with the maintenance of the American Empire paramount over any other governmental concern.

I met someone last night who received a $25 check from their health insurance company. What? They received a check from their insurance company? Come on, Spandan. Surely, you mean they had to write them a check. No, no. I know what I said. Thanks to the... you know, terrible horrible no good very bad health reform law the president signed, health insurance companies will be refunding their customers as much as $1.3 billion this year.

Altogether, insurance companies will pay out between $1.1 billion and $1.3 billion this year, and had set aside reserves to cover the rebates. Companies such as Aetna (NYS: AET) , Cigna (NYS: CI) , Coventry Health Care (NYS: CVH) , UnitedHealth (NYS: UNH) , and Wellpoint (NYS: WLP) will be sending out rebates to employers and customers who purchase their own insurance.

Much of the reaction of the political media about this news, though, is a big yawn. It's a drop in a bucket, they say. After all, per customer, it's not that much cash. The average for those receiving rebates will be $151 per household. Besides, it's a small chunk of the total revenue that the health insurance companies take in. And our news media certainly doesn't want to give it any attention, given the law's requirement might have a real effect of cutting down on the ad spending insurance companies make on these media channels' networks. Can't have that.

Here's Mother Jones magazine opening the predicted "progressive" storyline that Obama and Romney are not all that different

Barack Obama and Mitt Romney are bickering over who is the bigger fan of outsourcing. The Obama campaign has accused the private equity firm Romney owned and founded, Bain Capital, of "pioneering" outsourcing with its investments in companies that moved manufacturing overseas. Romney has claimed that he left Bain before jobs were outsourced and countered that Obama's the real "outsourcer in chief" for investing government funds in energy companies that went on to hire workers abroad. 

Nevertheless, neither candidate is actually outraged over outsourcing

What a great example of "he-says-she-says"  journalism, and get that "bickering" indicating that the journalist is above this petty partisan back and forth about something as trivial as a few tens of millions jobs. And it's great to see a "progressive" magazine like Mother Jones publish known false Romney accusations and known true Obama statements as if they were just equally valid. Why research and tell readers the truth when you have a story to tell? To see the truth of Romney's accusation you can do some heavy lifting and find an article on the very subject at Media Matters.

News outlets are uncritically reporting Republicans' efforts to label President Obama the "Outsourcer-in-chief," an attack outlined in a Huffington Post column by RNC chairman Reince Priebus, who says the administration outsourced jobs to "Indonesia, India, Mexico, Germany, Australia, Switzerland, Denmark" and more, "mostly in the form of stimulus funds." But a look at the fine print on the RNC's website ObamanomicsOutsourced.com reveals a pretty flexible definition of the term "outsourcing" -- so flexible, in fact, that it encompasses its opposite: foreign-owned firms coming to the U.S. to employ American workers.

 So great we have these progressive alternative media to also print RNC fiction uncritically.  As for Romney's claim to be not associated with a firm when he was sole owner, CEO, and managing partner, well that's a toughie innit? And neither candidate is outraged over "outsourcing" only if you accept the RNC's silly definition of outsource. In fact, the Obama administration has invested in and championed US manufacturing in a way not seen in many decades.  But, here is the "progressive" Mother Jones magazine telling us that both candidates are about the same and President Obama is faking commitment to US jobs - and citing a bunch of mostly "libertarian" economists to bolster the case.

I don't really know what to say about the tragedy in Aurora, Colorado. Other than grieving with the people of Aurora and being horrified at the worst of human nature, whatever I can say would nowhere near be able to fit this tragedy.

Here is the President, speaking on the tragedy.



Before I close, what I want to ask is what is our response? As a country, how do we respond to rising incidents of fatal violence? When will we stop making hatred the driving force in politics? When will we stop having petty arguments over guns and think about the safety of our communities from all perspectives? Because if our response stops at simply sympathizing with the families who have suffered, we will have failed to meet our responsibilities not just as neighbors, but as citizens.

From the geniuses of graphics at the Obama campaign:

Go share and spread the word.

Yahoo! News is out with a story about a pair of conservative health care "experts" who claim that when the federal government sets up a health insurance exchange in a state that refuses to set one up itself, that it cannot offer the subsidies (refundable tax credits) under the Affordable Care Act, even though the ACA gives HHS full authority to set up an operate an exchange as if by a state. Why not? Well, just because...

The law defines a health insurance exchange as a "governmental agency or nonprofit entity that is established by a state" in one section of the law, and then says later that individuals who participate in exchanges under that definition are eligible for subsidies. Because the law only says a "state" and not "a state or the federal government," Cannon and Adler argue that the federal government cannot legally dole out subsidies or tax breaks to people who buy insurance from federal exchanges.

They are referring to section 1311 of the law, which states, "IN GENERAL.—An Exchange shall be a governmental agency or nonprofit entity that is established by a State." Then, Section 1401 states that the credits apply to individuals and dependents who "were enrolled in through an Exchange established by the State under 1311." Problem is a section between the two of them, Section 1321, which states clearly that should a state be unwilling to establish such an exchange,

the Secretary shall (directly or through agreement with a notfor-profit entity) establish and operate such Exchange within the State and the Secretary shall take such actions as are necessary to implement such other requirements.

You might have heard of this by now. Republicans are heralding a crackpot study, funded by the Chamber of Commerce and other right wing groups, released by Ernst & Young, claiming that returning the top marginal rate for those making $250,000 or more in taxable income will cost 700,000 jobs!

The so-called study incorporates not just the president's proposal to revert the tax rates for the rich back to the Clinton era (you know, a time at which this study would supposedly predict a jobs drought), but also his policy proposals to raise the top marginal capital gains rate to 20%, limiting itemized deductions for the ultra wealthy, to equalize dividend income with earned income in terms of taxes, and the Affordabe Care Act's increase in the Medicare tax for top income earners. That's all fair, given that the president has either signed into law or supports all of those proposals. But here's where the crackpottery comes in:

• It assumes that the rich would rather make less money than make more money and pay a slightly higher percentage of it in taxes.
• It assumes that the effect of raising taxes on the least fortunate is approximately the same as raising taxes on the super rich. In fact, they assume that the rich are more tax sensitive.
• It assumes that businesses, especially "pass through" corporations with partnerships or sole proprietorships, would cease hiring if their taxes go up. 

Retroactively retired? What the hell is that? The Obama campaign asks:



Mitt Romney is so screwed.

I'll bet you anything if Mitt Romney were president, this wouldn't have happened:

Capital One Bank will pay $210 million to settle federal charges that it tricked credit card customers into buying costly add-on services like payment protection and credit monitoring.

Most of the money will go directly to refund customers who were led to believe the services were free or mandatory or offered more benefits than they did, officials said Wednesday.

Capital One says it was the fault of a third party vendor, the usual fall guy in these situations. But just what did Capital One do to have a near-quarter-billion-dollar whip cracked on it? The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which successfully brought this action, explains:

I will not be afraid of death and Bain,
Till Birnam forest come to Dunsinane. 

In 1992, Bain Capital bought American Pad & Paper by financing 87 percent of the purchase price. In the next three years, Ampad borrowed to make acquisitions, repay existing debt and pay Bain Capital and its investors $60 million in dividends.
As a result, the company’s debt swelled from $11 million in 1993 to $444 million by 1995. The $14 million in annual interest expense on this debt dwarfed the company’s $4.7 million operating cash flow. The proceeds of an initial public offering in July 1996 were used to pay Bain Capital $48 million for part of its stake and to reduce the company’s debt to $270 million.
From 1993 to 1999, Bain Capital charged Ampad about $18 million in various fees. By 1999, the company’s debt was back up to $400 million. Unable to pay the interest costs and drained of cash paid to Bain Capital in fees and dividends, Ampad filed for bankruptcy the following year. Senior secured lenders got less than 50 cents on the dollar, unsecured lenders received two- tenths of a cent on the dollar, and several hundred jobs were lost. Bain Capital had reaped capital gains of $107 million on its $5.1 million investment. [cite]

Note that the success of this business strategy depends entirely on the Goverment having its thumb on the scale. The government made corporate debt tax deductible so Bain could make Ampad borrow money to pay Bain fees  and then use tax deductions to make debt payments.  The Government decided that Bain's earnings would be taxed as capital gains (15%) and passed on to Bain's investors as "carried interest".  The Government, through the Courts, decided that the bankruptcy laws should be reinterpreted so that management could take money out of the company for its own benefit while putting creditors at risk and not suffer criminal or civil penalties when the company failed.  If a small business pulled this kind of "conveyance" of corporate funds for the benefit of company management, the owners would go to jail, but our Federal bankruptcy courts have decided that such considerations don't apply when the take is in the tens or hundreds of millions or more. And here's the conclusion of the author of the paragraph I started with - he's a socialist university professsor - um really he's a private equity financier himself:

Fact: If you are President, CEO, Chairman and 100% owner of a company, collecting six figure salaries, it is not possible for you have "no responsibility" for the decisions it makes. Something about the buck stopping somewhere.

Yet, incredibly, the Washington Post's resident "Fact Checker" Glenn Kessler and a few other independent "fact checkers" continue to base their analyses of questions raised by Bain's SEC filings showing Mitt Romney as the key officer in charge on exactly the contrary. Kessler even based his article defending his water-carrying for Mitt Romney based on the absurd notion that one may be sole owner of a company, its CEO and Chairman, and be absolved from all responsibility thanks to a "retroactive retirement."

For Kessler, those damning facts are pretty much irrelevant. Worse, he thinks that the belief that the notion that such a key officer bear any responsibility for a firm's actions is, in fact, nothing more than an opinion.

The question is not whether Romney left Bain in 1999 or 2002 ... but whether he had a direct role in Bain deals during this period.

For some readers, this may not be important. He is listed as chief executive in SEC documents, he hired the people at Bain, and so they might believe he bears responsibility for these deals. End of story. But that’s really an opinion, not a fact.

See? It's not a fact! That responsibility for a company's actions ultimate rests on the shoulder of its Chief Executive and sole owner is not a fact! Maybe next time, Glenn Kessler will claim that he had nothing to do with writing this swill despite the fact that it bears his name as author.

The Romney campaign has released a new ad, with a clip of Hillary Clinton from the Democratic primary in 2008, saying "shame on you, Barack Obama."



Well, that was a dumb move. How stupid does Romney have to be to open this door? Mitt Romney wants to talk about primary rivals? Really? Alright then, let's go for it.

I literally thought it was a headline in The Onion when I read that Mitt Romney is demanding President Obama apologize for using Bain's own SEC filings to prove Mitt Romney a liar. Say what? I mean I know that Romney's party lives on opposite planet most days, but this is absurd by even whackjob standards. Let's get some facts straight:

• Mitt Romney told everyone that he "left" Bain in February of 1999 and has had nothing to do with them since.
• SEC filings turned up showing Mitt Romney listed as Bain's President, CEO and Chairman of the Board as well as ... you know... sole owner through 2002. Oh, and he was drawing a salary at least in the six figures during this time.
• President Obama's campaign points that out and relies on the simple concept that if you're listed with all those titles, and paid for your service, you must have (and take) responsibility.
• Instead of apologizing for lying to the American people (or, in the alternative, filing a deceptive SEC report), Mitt Romney turns around and demands that President Obama apologize for telling the truth.

Yesterday, an explosive report in the Boston Globe showed that Mitt Romney has been lying to us about the time at which he actually left Bain Capital. His biggest line of defense against the lives upended by Bain's vulture capitalism has thus far been that when some of those companies went bankrupt while enriching Bain's shareholders, Romney was no longer in charge. He says he left Bain in 1999, never to look back. Yet, SEC filings show Romney listed as the CEO, Chairman of the Board, President and sole owner of Bain until 2002, and was being paid a salary by Bain as late as 2001 and 2002.

The Romney campaign offered a contorted excuse after being caught in a big lie: yes, he was the company's everything on paper, but you see, he really didn't have anything to do with anything Bain did after 1999. Tortured explanation, yes. Worst campaign spin in a generation, sure. But for argument's sake, let's take Mitt Romney at his campaign's word. This is a guy who, while fully legally responsible for the highest decision making of an organization and not on a formal leave of absence, just goes AWOL and deserts the organization. That's according to Mitt Romney himself.

Mitt Romney has staked his campaign for the presidency - indeed his fitness for the job of President - on being a CEO. And by his own admission, he's the kind of CEO that runs off to do his own thing, abandoning his duties while keeping the title for years on end. So if he became president, when can we expect him to just abandoning the duties of the office but continue to keep the title? At least when Sarah Palin didn't want to be governor anymore, she actually resigned the position. Mitt Romney is worse - he will leave his responsibilities, but continue to claim the privileges of the title. Just great.

Again, that is not me saying it. That is the Romney campaign's defense against the Boston Globe story.

Just as I predicted, the health care provider industry isn't so keen on GOP governors turning down gobbles of Medicaid dollars under the upcoming expansion that is part of the Affordable Care Act. Gov. Rick Scott of Florida made a big stink about how he would reject the Medicaid expansion that would cover every Floridian (and American) that makes up to 133% of the federal poverty level. For the first three years, the expansion is 100% covered by federal dollars, and in subsequent years, the federal share of the expansion is 90%.

There are governors, like Rick Scott of Florida and Rick Perry of Texas (what the hell is up with these Republican Rick's anyway?), that opened up their political pie-hole and put up a brave face that they would fight the expansion by rejecting it for their states. How's that going?

 A battle is brewing here in Florida, where Gov. Rick Scott took to national television soon after the ruling to announce that he would reject the expansion. Advocates for the poor and some players in the health care industry — especially hospitals — intend to push back.

After his disastrous performance in front of the NAACP today, Mitt Romney went to Fox News and said that he has secret black supporters who just don't want to say in public that they are abandoning Barack Obama. A little curiosity on The Ed Show shed a little light on just who these people Mitt Romney talked to are. Evidently, they are NOT a figment of Romney's imagination. On the contrary, they are black ... err... "leaders" Mitt Romney carries around with him so he could say he talks to black people.

Booo! That was the reaction at the NAACP today when Mitt Romney stood there and vowed to repeal Obamacare. While Mr. Romney spoke in mind-numbingly boring rhetoric and zero specifics, castigating President Obama for the high unemployment rate in communities of color (yes, because it was President Obama who wanted Detroit to go bankrupt), President Obama continues to open up an ever widening lead among black and Latino voters. Just as Mitt Romney was trying to tell African Americans how taking away health care from them and their children is a good thing for the economy, polls were released showing the President in lead nationally as well as in swing states with significant amounts of black voters like North Calrolina and Virginia. The reactions from the NAACP convention participants to Romney's speech might give a hint why:

Professor Drew Westen does not like President Obama's call for extending the middle class tax cuts. Of course, it's no surprise for this to come from one of the favorite Professional Leftists of the Professional Left media of record, the Huffington Post. Writing in a post for the Huffpo, Prof. Westen not only attacks the president for not having a vision (are you working for Romney, Prof. Westen?) for this country, but berates this $250,000 "cap" the president has set for extending tax breaks.

So what's his argument? He doesn't like the cap of $250,000 because if you give numbers, he argues, the numbers can be challenged. I suppose he is perfectly comfortable then, by Mitt Romney or Congressional Republicans not putting numbers on their specific budget cuts. Besides, depending on where you live, $250,000 doesn't really make you wealthy, says Westen. Oh, who will think of the children of the 2-percenters, cries out this claimant of the Left's mantle:

A defining feature of the Great Recession, unlike prior recessions, is that its tentacles have reached into the upper middle class, to precisely these Americans. If you live in Dothan, Alabama and earn $250,000, you're rich. New York City? Los Angeles? Chicago? Atlanta? After you knock the first $80,000 off for taxes, pay for someone to take care of your kids if you both work, and pay for private schools if you don't live in the right part of town, you're down to about $120,000. Now pay your mortgage and your property taxes.

Talk about irony. Talk about a Lefty elitist. Where oh where but on Huffington Post can you both purport to be a liberal and simultaneously claim that the federal tax dollars should be subsidizing private school tuition for your children?

I posted this to Twitter:

I then had a rather civil exchange with another Tweeter who questioned why it mattered whether presidential candidates released their tax returns or not. We left it amicably at agreeing to disagree. (Would that all Twitter exchanged were so pleasant with political opponents. I'd have fewer blocked accounts.) However, the exchange did prompt me to consider just why Mitt Romney not following a precedent adhered to by his father and every other candidate for the past 40 years was, to paraphrase Joe Biden, a BFD.

As I argued in my previous piece, those who back Romney have a visceral disdain for the rest of us who are not in their income bracket; this includes the GOP rank and file whom they've beguiled into believing their boilerplate of stolid self-sufficiency—a self-sufficiency they wish to impose on the rest of us while they bask in corporate and personal tax giveaways to the detriment of a civilized society.

Just as President Obama today once again called on Congress to prevent a large tax hike on middle class individuals and families, The Washington Post's Glenn Kessler put out a "fact check" on an Obama campaign tweet - an analysis that as out of touch with the realities of the middle class as Mitt Romney himself. The Obama campaign tweet in question?

“FACT: In 2010 and 2011, Romney paid less than 15% in taxes on $42.5 million in income—much less than what many middle-class families pay.”
— Tweet by @BarackObama, July 3, 2012

Giving this tweet 'three Pinocchios,' Kessler terms the tweet misleading, on the grounds that according to a Tax Policy Center analysis, the overall federal tax rate for the bottom 80% (based on adjusted gross income), is (including their portion of the payroll tax) of 13% or below, a little lower than Romney's tax rate of about 14-15%.

Lies, damned lies, and statistics.

Kessler misses the point about a mile and then some as his 'fact check' utterly fails to stay in touch with the realities of middle class families. Kessler ignores 3 major components of what should be part of any numerical analysis like this:

1. The ocean of gap between the incomes of middle class families and the Mitt Romney's of the world.
2. What lowers middle class tax rates vs. what lowers Mr. Romney's.
3. A corollary from the above: would middle class individuals and families similarly situated (other than in income, of course) as the Romneys pay less or more as in tax rates (introducing the law of averages)?

Better it is to die, better to starve,
Than crave the hire which first we do deserve.
Why in this woolvish toge should I stand here,
To beg of Hob and Dick, that do appear,
Their needless vouches? Custom calls me to't:
What custom wills, in all things should we do't,
The dust on antique time would lie unswept,
And mountainous error be too highly heapt
For truth to o'er-peer. Rather than fool it so,
Let the high office and the honour go
To one that would do thus. I am half through;
The one part suffer'd, the other will I do.

                                                Coriolanus, Act 2, Scene 3

Coriolanus is one of Shakespeare's lesser known works. It's a story of a Roman war hero who finds it debasing to canvass for votes among the plebs to advance his political career. The "rabble" is roused against him, he defects to the enemy, and hence springs the tragedy.

Now, in Elizabethan times, democracy wasn't a word used with reverence. One of the points of politics was to keep the ruling class in power, and the vast majority of people firmly subjected to it. And the play makes it clear that Coriolanus is to be commended for his disdain of the commoners. His tragic flaw was to allow his pride to push him to turn traitor, not that he held the Roman voter in low regard.

Fortunately, we've advanced a bit since them; but, at present, we have a candidate running for President who shares Coriolanus' disregard for the bulk of voters.

I must apologize for the hiatus, but, traveling in Europe doesn't leave much time for blogging. My trip is coming to an end, however, and I did want to do an important analysis of the Affordable Care Act decision by the Supreme Court. Before I begin with my analysis of the court's opinion, however, I want to say this about the dissent from Justices Kennedy, Scalia, Alito and Thomas: it is possibly the dumbest opinion I have ever read. I won't go into detail - you can read everything here if you want - but the jest of their opinion really was Scalia's argument form the bench: You expect us to read the law? OMG! No seriously, like, get outta here! Their basic argument was this: "The law is unconstitutional beccause it's too complicated and we don't like the mandate." At times I wondered if Sarah Palin was hired to write it, but I decided that it wasn't, given the lack of obvious grammar and spelling errors.

Now, on to the analysis of the actual ruling: I have read analyses across several sources - from those saying that it was a massive expansion of federal powers by the Supreme Court to ones calling it a 'phyrric' victory since the Supreme Court decided to validate the individual responsibility provision (known as the 'mandate') under Congress' power to tax rather than under its claimed power to regulate commerce, as well as its imposition that the federal government could not threaten existing Medicaid funding for states that choose not to participate in the ACA's Medicaid expansion. Below, I will discuss both these major parts of the decision, and show why none of the limitations supposedly imposed by the Court amount to a hill of beans, and why this decision was a unadulterated checkmate for the president against the right wing.