Republicans Will Vote For President Obama

FOR THE 1ST TIME IN MY

LIFE, I WILL NOT VOTE FOR

THE REPUBLICAN 

CANDIDATE 

FOR PRESIDENT. 

 By Tony Skaggs

I'm a life-long Republican, voted for John McCain, and supported Mitt Romney as the most

realistic candidate in the primaries. However, as both a Republican and more importantly an American, I did not share Rush Limbaugh's view expressed in January 2009: “I disagree fervently with the people on our side of the aisle who have caved and who say, ‘Well, I hope he succeeds'... I hope he fails.” Nor do I agree with Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell who in October of 2010, was asked what "the job" of Republicans in Congress was. McConnell answered, "The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president." We were in the middle of the greatest economic crisis since the 1930's and my party has as its main goal trying to make sure the president fails — even if the country fails right along with him. What has happened to my Republican party, this is not a sporting event, we all either win or lose together.

In the past, Republicans were pragmatic, not ideological; they would ask "does it work", not "does it fit into my theory." Ronald Reagan is known for his tax cuts, but he also pragmatically raised taxes 11 times to address the growing budget deficit, and had a good relationship with Democratic Speaker of the House Tip O'Neill. Since Reagan was pragmatic, not ideological, he compromised and worked with congress and accomplished what needed to be done to help the economy. Pragmatic non-ideological republican presidents never had a problem expanding the national government to solve national problems. Republican President Nixon created the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Republican President Theodore Roosevelt created the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Republican President Ford created the first federal regulatory program in education, with a program for special needs children. Republican President George Bush Sr. signed the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, and raised taxes to fight the deficit. Republican President Eisenhower warned: "we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, by the military–industrial complex" and was responsible for one of the largest Infrastructure projects in American history (Interstate Highway System). President Eisenhower also sent federal troops to Little Rock Arkansas so that discrimination against black school children would be ended. These men were not Left-wing radical hippies, but the "Tea Party movement" and their supporters in Congress would call them Socialist.

When I voted for Mitt Romney in the primaries, I believed Mitt was a moderate pragmatic Republican as was his father, George, when governor of Michigan, and as was Mitt himself when he was governor of Massachusetts. I thought Mitt had to move to the right to secure the nomination, but once he had it, he would move back to the moderate pragmatic center. Unfortunately, that has not happened; so taking this into consideration, and including the recent revelations about the secrecy with which Mitt Romney handles his financial affairs, I have had to re-evaluate my support for a Republican presidential candidate..

While I question some of President Obama's policies, I don't believe Mitt's policies regarding the economy will work. Mitt's business experience and wealth come from Wall Street, not Main Street, and I doubt he would have broken up the banks "too big to fail." As he said "The TARP (bank bailout) program was designed to keep the financial system going," and as a CEO of a private equity firm, he was a part of this financial system. If anything, given his background and avowed dislike of government regulation, I believe Mitt would have been even more hands off overseeing Wall Street and the banks "too big to fail." I know this non-involvement would NOT help a small business on Main Street. The firms which benefited from TARP, acted completely irresponsibly and contrary to the intent of the program by giving their executives huge bonuses, while restricting credit to small businesses. The problem with TARP, a program devised under President Bush, was too little regulation not too much.

I am disappointed in the pace of the economic recovery, yet I also know this was not an ordinary business cycle recession. It was initiated by an institutional Bank Panic in 2008, akin to the 1929 Wall Street Crash, in which some of the largest and most prestigious banks and financial corporations were threatened with failure and bankruptcy (ie Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch, AIG, etc). By the end of 2008 the lost of potential purchasing power (decline in value of homes, stocks, IRA's etc) in the United States alone, exceeded 14.5 TRILLION DOLLARS. Thanks to an old regulation left over from the 1930's, the FDIC, the anxiety and fear did not spread to small depositors at local banks, so there was no run on these small local banks. If not for the FDIC the economic crisis we faced would have been much worse, proving not all regulation is bad. However, since these small local banks also had their assets affected by the crisis, and the large banks were not extending credit to them, they could not make loans. The flow of small business credit dried up. The prevailing fear was that this panic would feed on itself, so that the economy would continue to spiral down.

It was once said, "As GM goes, so goes the nation." As people lost purchasing power, the demand for new cars dried up as people stopped buying them. This caused the car companies, including GM, to become threatened with bankruptcy. If the car companies went bankrupt, more then 100,000 additional workers would be unemployed. It was feared this would only be the tip of the iceberg as people wondered what would be the ripple effect on car part manufacturers, and what would be the effect on consumer confidence? Obama deviated from TRAP's stated purpose when he, without congressional authorization, used TARP to bail out GM and Chrysler thereby saving them from bankruptcy. Mitt would have not done this, as he stated: "Let Detroit Go Bankrupt." However, who would bid for these companies at this time of economic uncertainty, even Mitt's former company, Bain Capital, had reduced their acquisitions. I fear that China, for symbolic, political, and economic reasons might have bid to take over GM in a bankruptcy proceeding. This may seem farfetched until you realize GM sold more cars in China last year, then it sold in the United States. While I may oppose Obama's actions in theory, in practicality there was no other choice. Obama was pragmatic, he made a decision that solved the problem.

The TARP and actions by the Federal Reserve System (FED) provided approximately 3 trillion dollars for the financial system which stabilized it. Thus the financial system's private debt became public debt, and was added to the federal deficit. As opposed to this as I might be on a theoretical basis, I know as Mitt said "The TARP (bank bailout) program was designed to keep the financial system going." However, the Obama "Stimulus Program" which also included tax cuts, was inadequate. How can you expect to fill a 14.5 TRILLION DOLLAR HOLE caused by lost potential purchasing power with a program of less then one trillion dollars? The Stimulus should have been twice the size that it was. Between the TARP, the stimulus program, and the temporary cuts in the payroll tax, enough money was pumped into the economy to stabilize it and end the downward spiral into a depression. However these programs were not enough to "jump start" the economy, so that it would grow fast enough to reduce unemployment significantly. Yet, I can not condemn Obama because of the role the Republicans played in preventing the "Stimulus Program" from being adequate enough to solve the economic problem.

While Mitt Romney and Barack Obama did not disagree over the need or size of the stimulus program, they do disagree on what type of stimulus would be most effective. Mitt believed taxes should be lowered for job creators who are people with high incomes, aka "the investor class" or "the rich." In theory, this money would be invested to build new business enterprises which would create jobs, thereby creating demand for good and services. However, there is no way to guarantee this money would not be sent to "tax haven offshore banks" or be invested in foreign countries for a higher return, or even hidden away with gold. These will not circulate this money into the American economy and help it grow to produce jobs. Obama believed the money should be spent on people who will purchase goods and services with any extra money they have, aka "the American consumer" or "the middle class." He lowered taxes for low and middle income workers and increased spending directly by the government to create infrastructure like roads and schools, prevent layoffs in local communities, and support unemployed consumers who are able to buy products, thereby creating demand for good and services and creating jobs. Obama would quote the famous American investor Warren Buffett who said "the only reason why I'm going to hire is if there's more demand." Mitt's approach was "investor" or "supply side" driven; Obama's approach was "consumer" or "demand side" driven.

I can use myself as an example since I am considered a successful businessman. I have never made a business decision based on taxes. They never deterred me from expanding my business when I saw an opportunity to meet a demand by consumers. Taxes never took 100% of any additional income I made by expanding my business. They were just a cost of doing business like any other necessary cost. They paid for services my business and I, as an individual, needed, such as policemen, firemen, and road maintenance. On the other hand, while I always appreciate lower taxes, they would not effect how I ran my business. If my taxes were lowered, but there was no additional demand by consumers, I would not expand my business. However, I would take a nice European vacation and see Paris or Rome, or buy a Mercedes-Benz rather then a Ford, or perhaps buy a second home on a Caribbean island and open up a bank account there. Like any successful businessman, I am not ideological, I am pragmatic.

To those who question whether I am a Republican, let me remind them, there was once a time when we were a "big tent" party. I believe in smaller government only to the extent we had smaller corporations, since in many ways corporations have more control over our lives then the government does. Government power is the only counterbalance to corporate power, and at least we have some input into what the government does by our vote. We no longer live in a capitalist society, we live in a corporatist society. Therefore, I was spooked when Mitt Romney said "Corporations are people" and implied they should be given the same constitutional rights as citizens.

Those who advocate a new age of austerity, like the Romney/Ryan budget, will cite Greece with an unemployment rate of 22.6% and say Greece is a nation we are sure to follow if we do not tighten our belt and reduce government services. They also cite Spain's 24.3%, Portugal's 15.2% and Italy's 10.2% unemployment rate. However, what they do not say is that in each of these countries tax avoidance seems to be a national sport. As a Republican I can not support Mitt Romney because everything, from his refusal to reveal his taxes to offshore bank accounts in tax havens with strong bank secrecy laws, seem to indicate he is a tax avoider. I do not agree when Mitt Romney says that if he paid more taxes than were required, he wouldn't be qualified to be president. I think that if he paid a few more dollars in taxes then he had to, as I have done, it would be admirable. Mitt is a part of the problem, not the solution.

Mitt's father established the precedent of presidential candidates releasing their Tax returns in 1968. He released 12 years of them, saying "One year could be a fluke, perhaps done for show, and what mattered in personal finance was how a man conducted himself over the long haul." When Mitt's campaign was asked to release more then two years of returns, it responded “We’ve given all you people need to know" and has refused to give out additional information, even as many Republicans requested. People, including myself, are starting to ask "What is Mitt trying to hide?"

As Newt Gingrich put it, “I don’t know of any American president who has had a Swiss bank account.” But Mitt Romney also has accounts in the tax havens of Luxembourg, Bermuda, and the Cayman Islands. The Cayman Islands have a bank secrecy law so strong that a person can be jailed for up to four years, just for asking about account information. Mitt's desire for secrecy is so great that one time he neglected to include a Swiss bank account on required financial disclosure forms. Perhaps, it was because the Swiss account constituted a bet against the U.S. dollar, something no presidential candidate would want to reveal. When asked about it, Romney’s campaign spokeswoman, Andrea Saul, said that the candidate’s failure to include his Swiss account in the financial disclosures were merely a “trivial inadvertent issue.” From 1984 to 1999, taxpayers were allowed to put just $2,000 per year into a tax-free I.R.A., and $30,000 annually into a different kind of plan he may have used. Given these annual contribution ceilings, how can his I.R.A. possibly contain up to $102 million, as his financial disclosures now suggest? As Mitt said “I pay all the taxes that are legally required, not a dollar more.” However as Lee Sheppard, a contributing editor at the trade publication "Tax Notes" said, “When you are running for president, you might want to err on the side of overpaying your taxes, and not chase every tax gimmick that comes down the pike.” Has Mitt Romney acted as a model for all of us, the way a president should?

Why is Bain important? We must not forget a major contributing cause of the Financial Crisis of 2008 was the filing of false or misleading documents with the SEC. This is no small matter; since 2009 the SEC has collected fines of over 3 Billion dollars for this violation from financial institutions such as, among others: Bank of America, Goldman Sachs, Citigroup, Merrill Lynch, Credit Suisse, J.P. Morgan, and UBS. Even if Mitt Romney actually left all operational control of Bain Capital in 1999, he sanctioned and acquiesced to the filing of false and misleading documents with the SEC until 2002. While this violation may not rise to the level of these other institutions, it does indicate a certain attitude towards these filings: The complete and truthful disclosure of all facts is not important. This was an attitude all too prevalent in the financial community prior to 2009, and all of us paid the price.

Is full disclosure to the SEC one of the regulations Mitt would do away with? What about other regulations overseeing the financial community; Wall Street and the banks too big to fail? If you put a fox in charge of the chicken coop, you have a problem for the chickens. Will Mitt's election be the equivalent of that for the small investor? As a small investor, and businessman, I can not take that chance. The sad thing is that Bain was first brought up by a candidate who wanted to colonize the moon, and the false filing was never mentioned. If this was discovered earlier, I would not have supported Mitt in the primaries and Republicans may have had a different candidate. Perjury is perjury. It was ethically and morally wrong as it was related to a public institution and there could be no equivocation since the two official documents Mitt signed exactly contradict each other 100%. He can not flip-flop between these two documents.

Mitt has said “I would like to have campaign spending limits”, however his most recent position is “the American people (and corporations) should be free to advocate for their candidates and their positions without burdensome limitations.” The necessity of spending limits became apparent during the Republican primaries. The ability of one candidate to outspend his rivals by 5, 6, 7, 10 times distorts the electoral system. Good men could be destroyed by a barrage of false negative ads, and lack the ability to fight back. It is no longer a level playing field where the best man emerges victorious. Do we want a system where it is possible to indirectly buy elective office?

These are the reasons that for the first time in my life, I will not vote for a Republican candidate for president. I will vote to re-elect Barack Obama.

Falsely Accused

Conservatives falsely accused President Obama of being influenced by William (Bill) Ayers but, says nothing about Paul Ryan’s implementation of Russian Atheist – Ayn Rand monetary policy.  Rand used words such as “refuse” and “parasites” to describe the poor, while celebrating millionaire businessmen as heroes.  She abhorred government social programs, such as Social Security, at least until she reached the age of eligibility, and reportedly signed on for both its benefits and those of Medicare.  Ayn Rand’s views of selfishness have left a more lasting legacy in the policies that Paul Ryan and Willard Mitt Romney embrace.

Obama did not have a close relationship with William (Bill) Ayers. Yet, the matter was initially raised by Sean Hannity and other conservative talk radio hosts like Rush Limbaugh.  Moderator George Stephanopoulous brought the issue up during a debate between Clinton and Obama in April 2008. In October 2008, the matter was mentioned in attack ads, robocalls, mass mailings, and campaign speeches by Republican presidential candidate John McCain and vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin as an issue in the general election campaign.

Ryan’s Rand references have been so frequent and impassioned that “he can no more denounce Rand than he can denounce his own white grandmother.”  Rand’s works were an early and important influence on him, shaping his thinking as far back as high school.  Later, as a Congressman, Ryan not only tried to get all of the interns in his congressional office to read Rand’s writing, he also gave copies of her novel “Atlas Shrugged” to his staff as Christmas presents.  In 2005, Paul Ryan explained that he often looks to Ayn Rand’s novel “Atlas Shrugged” as inspiration for his views on monetary policy.  Ryan paid fealty to Rand in a speech he gave to the Atlas Society, the Washington-based think tank devoted to keeping Rand’s “objectivist” philosophy alive. He credited her with inspiring his interest in public service, saying, “[T]he reason I got involved in public service, by and large, if I had to credit one thinker, one person, it would be Ayn Rand. And the fight we are in here, make no mistake about it, is a fight of individualism versus collectivism.”

Romneyhood

Discrimination Shouldn't Be The Law, It's That Simple

The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is a United States federal law that defines marriage as the legal union of one man and one woman.   A vast majority of Americans oppose DOMA and want it repealed.  But despite losing over and over again in court, Boehner and Cantor, reacting to the anti-LGBT fringe of their party, stepped in to use House resources – our taxpayer dollars – to make sure this terrible law was defended. 

Section 3 of DOMA codifies the non-recognition of same-sex marriage for all federal purposes, including insurance benefits for government employees, Social Security survivors' benefits, and the filing of joint tax returns.  The Obama administration announced in 2011 that it had determined that Section 3 was unconstitutional.   Obama, who once opposed gay marriage, declared his unequivocal personal support on May 9.
 

Eight states have approved gay marriage, including Massachusetts, Connecticut, New York, Iowa, New Hampshire, Vermont, Maryland, Washington State and the District of Columbia.   A federal appeals court ruled that the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is unconstitutional Thursday May 31, 2012.  In a unanimous decision, the three-judge panel of the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston said the 1996 law deprives gay couples of the rights and privileges granted to heterosexual couples.  The decision was clear: the law treats same-sex couples as second-class citizens – and that's a violation of fundamental rights. 

The 1st Circuit said its ruling wouldn't be enforced until the U.S. Supreme Court decides the case, meaning that same-sex married couples will not be eligible to receive the economic benefits denied by DOMA until the high court rules. 


Must see:  They should be put to death.  Kansas pastor calls on government to kill gays. 

Obama News: Mitt the Menace

Obama News: Mitt the Menace: One of the boys involved described Lauber as “terrified.” Another schoolmate said that Lauber was “just easy pickin’s.” Another called t...

Mitt the Menace

One of the boys involved described Lauber as “terrified.” Another schoolmate said that Lauber was “just easy pickin’s.” Another called the incident “vicious.”

In an interview with Fox Radio on Thursday, Romney laughed as he said that he didn’t remember the incident, although he acknowledged that “back in high school, you know, I, I did some dumb things. And if anybody was hurt by that or offended, obviously I apologize.” He continued, “I participated in a lot of hijinks and pranks during high school, and some might have gone too far. And, for that, I apologize.”

There is so much wrong with Romney’s response that I hardly know where to start.

But let’s start here: If the haircutting incident happened as described, it’s not a prank or hijinks or even simple bullying. It’s an assault.

Second, honorable men don’t chuckle at cruelty.

Third, if it happened, Romney’s explanation that he doesn’t remember it doesn’t ring true. It is a searing account in the telling and would have been even more so in the doing. How could such a thing simply melt into the milieu of other misbehavior? How could the screams of his classmate not echo even now?

Fourth, “if someone was hurt or offended, I apologize” isn’t a real apology. Even if no one felt hurt or offended, if you feel that you have done something wrong, you can apologize on that basis alone. Remorse is a sufficient motivator. Absolution is a sufficient objective. Whether the person who was wronged requests it is separate.

Lastly, this would have been an amazing teaching moment about the impact of bullying if Romney had seized it. That is what a real leader would have done. That is what we would expect any adult to do.

A 2010 CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll found that 77 percent of Americans believed that bullying is a “serious problem that adults should try and stop whenever possible.” Romney passed on that chance.

While I have real reservations about holding senior citizens to account for what they did as seniors in high school, I have no reservations about expecting presidential candidates to know how to properly address the mistakes they once made.

This is where Romney falls short, once again.

There was a malicious streak at the core of the high-school boy in these accounts. Romney’s muddled and confusing explanation and half-apologies only reinforce concerns that there is also something missing from the core of the man: sincerity and sensitivity.

Targeting the vulnerable is an act of cowardice. The only way to vanquish cowardice is to brandish courage. Romney refused to do so. This is an amazing missed opportunity to exhibit a needed bit of humanity by a man who seems to lack it.

People understand regret. Romney may have been applauded if he had chosen to express some to redeem himself, but he didn’t. He chose obfuscation and obliviousness. Romney has an uncanny ability to turn a bad thing into a worse thing by failing to be forthright.

Americans want to know that the boy from that prep school grew up in knowledge and wisdom and grew deep in compassion and empathy. We want to know that his shoulders are now wide enough to bear blame and his heart is big enough to seek contrition.

Americans want a president who doesn’t target the weak, but valiantly seeks to protect them.

That is what courage looks like.

Source:  Charles M. Blow http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/12/opinion/blow-mean-boys.html?_r=1

AWESOME....AWESOME....FIRED UP READY TO GO...

I believe that Black people will have to stand affirmative on this one, We have been thru hell in this Country.  We continue to go thru hell.  How can we in good conscience tell a very large segment of our brothers and sisters that they are not worthy of the very same rights that we fight for daily ??? even some 200 + years later, how do we tell them that they are second or third class and cannot decide who to love, that they are less than we, that's what has been done to us, We of all people know what that does to a person, I believe that Obama did what he had to do.  He came to the decision, So he acted like a man would act and delivered it regardless of his position in this election process, Millions of people now know how their leader feels about their rights, and for me that's a good and honorable thing, and just what I would expect of Barack Hussein Obama, well done Sir !!!  Darwin Phillips

7.4 million College Students Affected

The student loan filibuster may be the highest-profile stalemate yet.   The vote was the Senate Republicans’ 21st successful filibuster of a Democratic bill this Congress, which started in January 2011.  Republicans have blocked consideration of President Obama’s full jobs proposal, as well as legislation repealing tax breaks for oil companies, helping local governments pay teachers and first responders, and setting a minimum tax rate for households earning more than $1 million a year. Republicans say the measures were flawed and potentially harmful to the economic recovery.  Unlike those earlier bills, this one is not likely to be abandoned.  More than 7 million undergraduates taking out federally subsidized loans to cover next year's tuition will have to dig deeper in their pockets to pay them off.

   

The interest rate was lowered to 3.4 percent under an agreement in a Democratic-controlled Congress five years ago but that legislation is expiring.  In 2007, lawmakers temporarily cut the rate for undergraduates taking out those loans up to the 2011 school year. The lower rates were phased in, so students have really only enjoyed the lowest 3.4% rate on subsidized federal loans for one school year. The 2007 law allowed interest rates to revert back to 6.8% for the 2012-2013 school year starting July 1.

Graduate students with Stafford loans pay a higher rate, as do students with unsubsidized Stafford loans. Most undergraduates take out both unsubsidized and subsidized loans.  With subsidized student loans, the federal government absorbs some of the interest rate for lower- and middle-income families based on financial need.  One student financial loan expert, Jason Delisle of the left-leaning New America Foundation, points out that there are programs already in existence that ease the repayment burden for unemployed and under employed graduates. He thinks the federal government can help more students in other ways -- such as maintaining funds for Pell Grants going to lower-income students.  Delisle points out that even the 6.8% interest rate is also a subsidized rate that's lower than what students will find on the private market.

Mr. Obama has elevated the issue by hammering Republicans on it for weeks. American students took out twice the value of student loans in 2011, about $112 billion, as they did a decade before, after adjusting for inflation. Over all, Americans now owe about $1 trillion in student loans. In 2010, such debt surpassed credit card debt for the first time.

Students are paying close attention to the issue.  Young people 18-29 supported the Democratic plan by a 2-1 margin.  With unemployment just below 24% for teenagers and 14% for those ages 20 to 24, more young people are going back to school or staying in school, according to recent data by Equifax. 

Additionally, more students struggle to pay back these loans. Student loan delinquencies with payments more than three months late rose 14.6% in 2011 from the year before, according to Equifax.

Many lawmakers in both parties agree they'd like to extend the current 3.4% rates for another year. What they don't agree on is how to offset the $6 billion it would cost to do so -- a substantial hurdle.  “We all agree we’re not going to let the rate go up,” Mr. McConnell said.  Republicans made clear they would go on offense, blaming Democrats if interest rates doubled July 1.

The GOP-run House last month passed its version of an interest fix that would keep rates from jumping to 6.8 percent. But that bill's means to finance the $6 billion annual subsidy — stripping preventive health-care services from the new health insurance law — is highly objectionable to Democrats.  President Obama vowed to veto that bill.

Republicans would not accept the Senate Democrats’ proposal to pay for a one-year extension by changing a law that allows some wealthy taxpayers to avoid paying Social Security and Medicare taxes by classifying their pay as dividends, not cash income.  “They want to raise taxes on people who are creating jobs when we are still recovering from the greatest recession since the Great Depression,” said Senator Lamar Alexander, Republican of Tennessee.

Blunt and Republicans distributed a letter in opposition to the Democratic plan signed by a long list of business associations, among them the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the American Bankers Association, and Associated General Contractors of America.  The letter asserted that the Democratic plan would sock a variety of closely held businesses, from real estate to consulting. Active shareholders of 'S' corporations would be required to pay payroll taxes on both wages and earnings, a "provision that could be expanded to include other, more capital intensive industries," the letter read.

In 2004, when it emerged that John Edwards, then a vice-presidential hopeful, had classified himself as a “subchapter S corporation” to pay himself dividends rather than income, conservatives criticized him for avoiding payroll taxes.

Women heavily support the Democratic plan.

Missouri Sen. Claire McCaskill, offering reasons why she voted with her Democratic colleagues, said: "If we’re going to keep this economic recovery moving in the right direction, then we’ve got to make college more affordable and accessible and make sure our kids and grandkids can compete for the jobs of the future. That’s what this fight is all about.”  Senator Claire McCaskill (D-Missouri) says the federal government has an obligation to stay involved in guaranteeing student loan programs.  She says privatizing large amounts of student loans would keep a large number of kids from going to college.  "The notion that this can be done in the private sector flies in the face of the reality of what kind of credit risk kids right out of high school are whose families don't have the economic wherewithal to send them to school."

Sen. Roy Blunt, R-Mo., sounded a political note in explaining his 'no' vote.  He says the Democrats cut local banks out of the student loan equation and now they're stuck with having to double interest rates to make the programs work.  "You know, we should get back to where there's a competitive marketplace out there where people are loaning money to students, and they're loaning it at some rate that is close to the regular interest rate rather than a rate set by the government years in advance."

  

“College students and recent college graduates face fewer job opportunities and less income in the Obama economy," Blunt said in a statement. "Instead of compounding the problem with more bad policies that raise taxes on small businesses and raid Social Security and Medicare, we must work together to prevent a rate increase on students and make it easier for job creators to hire them when they graduate.”

Instead of asking large, private corporations to pay their fair share, Republicans want to eliminate the funding for a preventive health care program.  You read that right.  Republicans think that asking corporations to pay their fair share is too much to ask, but eliminating funding for preventive health care programs is totally acceptable.

Source:

• Post-Dispatch: Blunt, Republicans marshal 'S-Corp' lobby against student loan fix
• Fired Up!: Blunt Votes to Double Student Loan Interest Rates
• OzarksFirst.com: Student Loan Bill Blocked; Missouri Senators Remain Divided
• New York Times: Senate Republicans Block Bill on Student Loan Rates

The Supreme Court Will Not Stop Our President From Achieving An Affordable Health Care Act

During my first term as President, I passed the Affordable Health Care Act.


During my second term as President, I will pass the Affordable Health Care Act again.

The President knocks it out of the park once again.  He's definitely funny!  C-SPAN: President Obama at the 2012 White House Correspondents' Dinner - http://youtu.be/6IoVSbjmTZs

Romney - "You Lie!" Now, I'll Never Trust You Again

Mitt Romney: He ‘Lied’ About Individual Mandate.

AND

A “Below 8% Unemployment Figure” Was Never Promised by Mr. Obama.

Interestingly, the information to disprove this claim exists on the 

Romney campaign Web site. Far from being anything that Obama 

said, the Romney campaign acknowledges that this 8 percent figure 

comes from a staff-written projection issued Jan. 9, 2009 — before 

Obama had taken the oath of office.

As Mitt Romney begins to pivot from the long Republican primary fight to a likely November duel with President Barack Obama, he is re-launching some of his most repeated -- and inaccurate -- attacks of the incumbent president.

• He said that the Obama administration pledged to keep unemployment below 8 percent, a comment that we have previously rated Mostly False.
• He said repealing the federal health care law would save money, a comment we twice have ruled False.
• Romney said Obama apologized for America abroad, a comment we first ruled False but later called Pants on Fire as Romney recycled the line.
• And Romney said  please apply what we did in Massachusetts nationally on an individual mandate.   “What does it say about a candidate who [is] faced with an op-ed that he wrote a few years ago, goes in front of people, and tells them something that he knows is not true, that the press knows is not true, and that the people in the audience knows is not true?” 

Romney - You Lie!  Now, I'll never trust you again.

Say It Loud - Let's Re-Elect President Obama

You are the President's voice out there. 

You will be the difference between voters hearing our message or not.  

It's on us to speak the truth.  

Here are five other things that should give Americans pause.  So print these out, post them on your fridge, and share them on Facebook.  Send this list around to friends who are on the fence.  When and if your mother-in-law, or cousin, or best friend claims that Romney is "moderate," you need to know what to say.

  

1. Romney's positions are the most radically anti-women of any candidate in a generation: He supports banning all abortions, backed a so-called "personhood" amendment that could make certain forms of birth control illegal, and says he would "get rid of" federal funding for Planned Parenthood that provides preventive services like cancer screenings for millions of women.

2. Romney would repeal Obamacare. Insurance companies would once again be allowed to run up premiums, unjustifiably deny coverage for pre-existing conditions, drop patients when they get sick, discriminate against women by charging them more for coverage than men, and spend more of your premium dollars on CEO profits and bonuses instead of your actual health care.

3. Romney is a risk when it comes to foreign policy and national security. On many of these questions, he has shifted his position for political reasons, even within the same campaign. His only clear commitment is to endless wars: He has no plan to end the war in Afghanistan and would leave our troops there indefinitely. He called the President's decision to bring our troops home from Iraq by last Christmas "tragic."

4. Despite the lessons of recent history, Romney would double down on the disastrous tax policies that handed windfalls to the wealthy, but stacked the deck against the middle class. Under Romney, millionaires and billionaires would get a $250,000 tax cut, while families with kids making less than $40,000 a year would, on average, actually see their taxes go up. To the surprise of no one, Romney also opposes the Buffett Rule. He would allow millionaires to continue to take advantage of loopholes and special deals that often allow them to pay a lower tax rate than the middle class. And he supports tax breaks for companies that ship jobs overseas.

5. Romney would end Medicare as we know it -- replacing it with a voucher scheme that would drive profits for insurance companies by forcing seniors to purchase private insurance, paying whatever costs a voucher wouldn't cover out of their own limited budgets. 

Thanks Mr. President

President Obama has signed 39 tax cuts worth $400 billion for families and small businesses, giving a tax cut of about $3,600 to the typical working family in America.    

Guiding Principles

Restoring Fairness

For too long, the U.S. tax code has benefited the wealthy and well-connected at the expense of the vast majority of Americans. That’s why President Obama has successfully fought to cut taxes for middle class families and small businesses. And it’s why he has called for reforming our tax code and closing tax loopholes for millionaires and billionaires as well as hedge fund managers, private jet owners and oil companies.

Supporting the Middle Class

On September 12, 2011 President Obama sent The American Jobs Act to Congress. In keeping with these principles, the American Jobs Act would put more money in the pockets of working and middle class Americans by cutting in half the payroll tax that comes out of the paycheck of every worker, allow more Americans to refinance their mortgage, and cut payroll taxes in half for 98 percent of businesses.

Making Taxes Consistent and Simple

In addition, the President supports making refundable tax credits permanent and simplify confusing provisions in the tax code, encouraging saving and creating a tax system that works for all Americans.

Warren Buffett, a billionaire, pays a lower tax rate than his secretary.

Think that's unfair? So does Warren Buffett.

Right now, millionaires and billionaires have nearly the lowest tax rates they've had in 50 years, while everyone else picks up the tab.

So President Obama is asking Congress to pass a commonsense bill, known as the Buffett Rule, to fix the tax code and make sure that millionaires and billionaires pay at least the same share of their income in taxes as middle-class families.

The Buffett Rule would reduce the deficit while helping to pay for investments in education, clean energy, jobs, and other programs that will help our economy grow. 

Many Republicans are dead-set against this commonsense step, so the unfortunate reality is that next week's vote may not go our way.

But tax fairness is one of the defining issues in this election, and supporting this policy is one of the touchstones of this campaign.

Not only does Mitt Romney oppose the Buffett Rule, but he wants to protect special breaks and loopholes that help wealthy Americans like himself avoid paying their fair share -- and he wants to shower them with even more tax breaks paid for by middle-class families and seniors.

If that's not the kind of country you want to see for the next four years, do something about it now.

Join President Obama in urging Congress to pass the BuffettRule:

Over The Line: Rove and Limbaugh Call President Obama a "Thug"

We do not want a group of un-elected judges overturning the will of Congress.

Bush in 2007:  Unelected 

Judges Making Law Are A Threat To Democracy

President Obama has to speak to serious issues that matter to American people.

I'm confident that the "Affordable Health Care Act" will be upheld because it should be upheld

Obama said he was confident the Supreme Court "will not take what would be an unprecedented extraordinary step of overturning a law" passed by Congress.


"I think it's important and I think the American people understand and I think the justices should understand that in the absence of an individual mandate, you cannot have a mechanism to ensure that people with pre-existing conditions can actually get health care," 

 "So, there's not only an economic element to this and a legal element to this, but there's a human element to this and I hope that's not forgotten in this political debate."  Conservative Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, says "it must be nice living in a fantasy world where every law you like is constitutional and every Supreme Court decision you don't is 'activist.  Judicial activism or restraint is not measured by which side wins but by whether the court correctly applied the law"

The three-judge appellate ordered the Justice Department to address whether the Executive Branch believes courts have the power to strike down laws it interprets as unconstitutional.  Appeals Court Judge Jerry Smith, a Reagan appointee, asked if DOJ agreed that the judiciary could strike down an unconstitutional law.  The DOJ lawyer, Dana Lydia Kaersvang, answered yes and mentioned Marbury v. Madison, the landmark case that firmly established the principle of judicial review more than 200 years ago.  The other two judges Emillio Garza and Leslie Southwich, both Republican appointees, remained silent.

The Supreme Court is the final say on our Constitution and our laws, and all of us have to respect it, but it's precisely because of that extraordinary power that the Court has traditionally exercised significant restraint and deference to our duly elected legislature, our Congress. And so the burden is on those who would overturn a law like this,"  I expect the Supreme Court actually to recognize that and to abide by well-established precedence out there. I have enormous confidence that in looking at this law, not only is it constitutional, but that the Court is going to exercise its jurisprudence carefully because of the profound power that our Supreme Court has," Mr. Obama said.

Smith requested a letter asking “What is the position of the Attorney General and the Department of Justice, in regard to the recent statements by the president?  What is the authority is of the federal courts in this regard in terms of judicial review?"  In asking for the letter, Smith said: "I want to be sure you're telling us that the attorney general and the Department of Justice do recognize the authority of the federal courts, through unelected judges, to strike acts of Congress or portions thereof in appropriate cases."  Some conservative legal sources privately expressed disappointment in the appeals court's order, saying it appeared punitive and petty to demand the Justice Department defend a position it had never disputed in court.

"It was like he [the judge] was giving a homework assignment to an unprepared student," said one right-leaning lawyer, who opposed the law. "It has the effect of putting the judiciary on the defensive, and could give rise to concerns the courts will look at the law from a political, not constitutional perspective."

David Cordani is the CEO of Cigna, the nation's fourth-largest health insurer. He says the insurance industry started changing itself before the Affordable Care Act became law in 2010. And the changes will continue regardless of what happens at the high court.  "The broader health care debate is way larger than the individual mandate,"