R²

     Mitt Romney's choice of Congressman Paul Ryan to be his running mate tells you all you need to know about Romney and about the state of the 2012 presidential campaign.  Romney's choice confirms what many polls have been saying, namely, there is virtually no one left to convert from the undecided ranks and this campaign will rise or fall on turnout.

     Romney claims he wants this campaign decided on the question of the economy and jobs, but the choice of Ryan shows the true agenda he is pursuing.  Ryan is an ideologue popular with the most regressive wings of the Republican Party.  Romney is not trusted by these folks and there was a danger some might stay home rather than vote for him.  In order to fire up that base, and bring them out in November, Romney abandoned his focus on the economy and has now placed a bet that a war on the New Deal and Great Society will turn out enough regressives to propel him into the White House.

     Nothing in Ryan's career, or his legislative accomplishments (of which there are few) shows a concern for creating jobs.  Much like Romney himself, Ryan is in favor of an unrestricted free market with few, if any, restrictions.  Just as Romney made his fortune borrowing money, buying companies, loading them with debt and then selling them or bankrupting them to the tune of millions of dollars in management fees, (fees taxed at 15% for the 1% who benefit most from them), Ryan has made his bones railing against the excesses of government and regulations used to monitor the market's activities just as his patron saint, Ayn Rand, encouraged him to do.

     Ryan, like Romney, wants to cut taxes for the wealthy.  A new study by the Tax Policy Center, confirms R²'s cuts could not be offset by "closing loopholes" in the tax code.  The only way to make up for the over $300 billion lost to the treasury each year would be to raise taxes on the middle class and shred programs for the working poor.  On top of tax cuts for the 1%, both Ryan and Romney want to increase military spending and offer no way to pay for it.  We have seen this before.  George H.W. Bush accused Ronald Reagan of engaging in "voodoo economics" when he said he could cut taxes, increase military spending and balance the budget.  Reagan went on to sign 8% tax increases including the largest peacetime tax hike in history.  Al Gore accused Bush 43 of "fuzzy math" when he said he could cut taxes, increase military spending and balance the budget.  We know how well all that worked for the economy and jobs.  Bush 43 did not create a "net" new job in almost six years of his presidency and we know what condition the economy was in when Obama became president.  Now Ryan and Romney want to do it all over again promising different results.  What is Einstein's definition of insanity?

     Ryan represent far more than Reagan/Bush/Bush redux.  Ryan is the avatar of the regressive war against the New Deal/Great Society programs of the 20th century.  He is the child prodigy of those who have been fighting to undo all the progress made fighting poverty, expanding the middle class and building a safety net for the most vulnerable of our citizens.

     Ryan's proposed budget, which Romney now endorses implicitly, would end Medicare and Social Security as entitlement programs and he would turn Medicaid (health care for the poor) into a state block grant, which would guarantee its death by a thousand cuts.  By ending Medicare and Social Security as entitlements, it opens them up to the whim of Congress to fund them or not and we have seen how regressives in Congress feel about funding programs for the 99% of Americans.  Ironically, Ryan doesn't deny any of these contentions.

     Ryan would change Medicare into a voucher program.  The government would give you a check to pay for private health insurance.  If the check isn't enough, you have to make up the difference out of your pocket (early analysis says it would require between $3,000- 6,000 a year of extra spending by each recipient).  Of more concern is Congress could cut the voucher or refuse to increase it to adjust for inflation, something the Tea Party and Ryan's other supporters brag about wanting to do and the result would be millions of American who couldn't afford or get medical coverage.  (If Romney and Ryan were able to repeal Obama care, seniors with pre-existing conditions...most...wouldn't be able to participate in the private markets or would have to pay much higher premiums than a voucher would cover).

     Ryan would privatize Social Security.  Each American would get a 401k program in which to invest.  All your eggs in a Wall Street basket.  It would be a huge windfall for Wall Street banks.  Most 401K plans have lost up to 50% of their value in the last 5-10 years.  What happens of this occurs in the future?  You are S.O.L.

     With Medicaid, Ryan would turn it into a block grant program managed by the states.  If Obama gets re-elected, 17 million poor Americans, who currently don't have medical coverage, would be eligible for Medicaid.  If Ryan and Romney get their way, those 17 million lose out and states would be free to cut back even further.  Right now California and states across the country are cutting Medicaid.  Republican governors are refusing to take federal money to expand coverage for the poor.  Imagine what they would do if given a part of the money in the form of a block grant intended for the poor but available for other purposes as well?

     Romney chose Ryan because it will increase Republican turnout and because he isn't trusted by the extreme wing of his party.  He didn't pick him because of a plan to increase jobs or broaden the economy...he didn't pick him because it will help him return the economy to health...he didn't pick him to appeal to women, independents, undecided or young voters.  Adding Ryan doesn't do anything to create one new job.  Romney has capitulated to the most radical wing of his party in order to bribe them into voting for him.  (surprise, surprise).  This is now a war to see whether this is a nation committed to all its people...poor, elderly, working poor, middle class...or one increasingly dedicated to the top 1%.

     It is not hyperbole to observe a Romney/Ryan ticket could put the final nail in a coffin built for the remains of an America at its best when it decided to spread its wealth to all its people...to raise all boats...to recognize a society's morality is judged by how it treats its most vulnerable members.  The question yet to be answered is whether Obama's base, given the choice of a future dominated by Romney and Ryan, will now storm the voting booths to fight back and reclaim the future vision of this country.

LEGITIMATE RAPE?

By a margin reaching into double digits (15 points), American women say they will not vote for Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney.  This gender gap appears to be widening.  The same antipathy women have for Romney extends down the ticket to Republican Senate and House candidates as well.  Two recent events lend credence to the fears women have if a regressive Republican gets into the White House or regressives can take the Senate and hold on to the House.

     In Missouri, the regressive candidate running for the Senate against incumbent Senator Claire McCaskill, Todd Akin, was asked if he would allow a woman to get an abortion if she was raped.  He pooh-poohed the question by announcing in "legitimate" rapes; a woman rarely gets pregnant so this is not a big issue requiring an exception.  (A reproductive rights group released data showing over 64,000 rapes in 2007 resulting in over 3,500 pregnancies)  Akin went on to offer further light on the issue by opining how we shouldn't punish the baby because his or her mother was raped.

     The firestorm was swift and intense.  Akin has been asked to step down and there are threats his money could be cut off.  He says he is in the race to stay.  Before the dust settled, Romney condemned the statement; the Republican Senate Committee denounced it along with House and Senate candidates.  President Obama called the statement offensive.  The candidate himself now says he "misspoke".

      This is not a "gotcha" journalistic moment.  This is not just another political gaffe, and this is not something regressive Republicans can distance themselves from.  This man, and his regressive Tea Party supporters, believe this stuff and it's how they speak about it in private all the time.  These are men, and some women, who actually make distinctions between legitimate and illegitimate rape.  They are quite comfortable making value judgments about women's sexual habits and if a woman gets pregnant in an immoral manner, she is suspect...her judgment is suspect...her morality is suspect and her intelligence is suspect.  (How else do you explain laws requiring a 24 hour waiting period, mandatory explanations about what an abortion can do psychologically to a woman, required video viewing of a fetus, descriptions of the pain a fetus might feel and other laws which suggest women neither think about nor care about this decision)  Women cannot be trusted to make the right decisions regarding their health, their bodies and their reproductive lives so "we" have to pat their heads and either make the decision for them or take it away entirely.  These Einsteins want to take away a woman's access to contraception, and prevent health insurance companies from being required to pay for standard contraceptive services.  Women can't be trusted after all.

     What was lost amidst all the noise over the idea of a "legitimate" rape was Akin's other comment.  He said the rights of the fetus supersede the rights of the pregnant woman.  Yes, she was raped, but she doesn't have the right to harm the fetus because of that incident.  He totally dismisses as irrelevant any psychological or physical harm this pregnancy could cause the woman.  This is a radical and dangerous tact, which regressives have been pushing through the use of personhood amendments and other restrictive laws.  This is how they arrive at calling abortion murder and a capital crime.  Once a woman is pregnant she loses all civil liberties in their mind.

     The second event, which should not be overlooked, is Romney's nomination of Congressman Paul Ryan to be his running mate.  Ryan is quite comfortable with all this regressive rhetoric.  Ryan is opposed to all abortions, no exceptions.  Ryan supports a personhood constitutional amendment, which would effectively outlaw abortion and prohibit most of the common forms of contraception.  Ryan supports cutting off federal funding for Planned Parenthood and has led the fight to protect the Catholic Church from being required to provide contraceptive care in the health insurance it offers to employees of Catholic schools, hospitals and social service agencies.  Ryan goes further and supports legislation, which allows any Catholic business owner to refuse to include contraceptive coverage in employee health insurance for religious reasons.  If you add his budget proposal to cut Food Stamps, childcare credits, Medicaid, Head Start and end Medicare as we know it, (women being the majority of those who benefit from such programs) and Ryan and Romney are right to fear how women will vote.  When you declare war on women...when you proclaim you are for smaller government (except where you want the government to control a woman's choice about her own health and body)...when you tell women you will gut a social safety net which they benefit from disproportionately...it would be wise to duck and cover when they are given a chance to vote on your candidacy.

     I've never been a supporter of single issue voting.  Life is more complex than one single issue.  However, abortion and reproductive access are gateway issues.  The position a politician holds on abortion and contraception is a direct predictor of how they will vote on the top 10 issues important to women.  If they will vote to deny you contraceptive access...if they will vote to give the government the power to take control of your body away from you...imagine how they will vote on equal pay, domestic violence legislation, pre-natal care and a host of other issues.  Actually, you don't have to imagine.  You already know and at that point you might also come to understand what "they" mean by legitimate rape.

THE 13% SOLUTION...

  Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney proudly proclaimed from the front pages of the New York Times his income tax rate for the last ten years was 13%.  He and his campaign sought out reporters to announce this important revelation.  This was damage control.  Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid accused Romney of paying no taxes in that 10-year period.  While continuing to refuse to release any more tax returns, Romney assures America he has reviewed them and thus the 13% figure is a result of his compilations.  What is truly mind-bending is Romney, and his advisors, believe this is a good news story and will end the controversy once and for all.  It is an example of how out of touch he is with the realities of everyday life for most Americans.

     In the last 10 years, if 2010 is any indication, Romney received as much as $200 million in income.  He is in the top 1% of the top 1%.  He wants us to know that while the top tax rate for an average American receiving that much income would be about 38%, he only paid an effective rate of 13% and he is not ashamed to admit it.  Through the use of Swiss bank accounts and trusts set up in the Bahamas and Grand Cayman Islands, and numerous other tricks of the accounting trade, Romney denied the American treasury of millions of dollars.  This lost revenue must be replaced by either government borrowing (which Romney says he abhors) or by revenue collected aggressively from working Americans taxed at higher rates and who don't have access to the financial legerdemain Romney is able to perform.  You should now vote for him because he did pay some taxes.  Yes, they are at a rate lower than the income tax rates were in 1950, and yes, he denied the government millions of dollars in revenue, and yes, other Americans have to make up the shortfall with more out of their pockets, but no one can claim he didn't pay "any" taxes during that 10 year span and he is proud to announce that to the world.

     One problem with all of this fiscal giddiness is we have nothing but Romney's word he paid any taxes at all.  Without the actual returns, there is no proof he is telling the truth.  (Imagine if no official Hawaiian birth certificate had been released for the President...would the regressive media and pundits have accepted his word?)  President Obama was asked why his campaign is spending so much time on Romney's taxes.  Aren't there more important issues Mr. President?  Obama responded with two concerns.  First, anyone running for president is expected to release their private medical records for the public to analyze about their health and fitness for the office.  Because of scandals, like the terrible health of President Kennedy, which was kept from the public, they want to know the medical history of each candidate.  The same is true of tax returns.  Obama reminded the reporters, running for president ain't beanbag.  The American citizens expect a level of disclosure, which is invasive, uncomfortable and leaves one fully exposed before they decide on how they are going to vote.  Second, Obama pointed out the Swiss bank accounts and the corporations (false?) and trusts set up in the Bahamas and Grand Caymans.  We learned of all of this from one return.  What else is there to know?  What other loopholes was Romney able to access?  Many of these loopholes were passed by Congress after intense lobbying by Romney and Wall Street and the 1%.  How much has Romney benefitted from such legislative largesse?  Where has Romney ever lobbied or advocated for similar loopholes to benefit average working Americans?  It is, according to Obama, a character issue.

     Only regressive Republicans could want a New York Times headline trumpeting the low tax rate paid by their standard bearer and think this is politically good news.  Only someone who had never faced the gut-wrenching, stomach-dropping moment on April 15th when they discover they owe thousands of dollars in taxes and don't have that kind of money lying around, would think announcing how well he has gamed the system would boost his political fortunes.  Only Romney would ask Americans to trust he only took advantage of some of the escape routes the tax code makes available, but only some of them, not all of them.

     If you invented an app, or an Internet company or you struck gold under the Bering Straight, and you made $200 million this year, you would pay taxes at around the 38% rate because your windfall was "ordinary" income.  However, because Romney's money comes from investments made by Bain Capital, his money is considered "carried interest" and taxed at a 15% rate.  There is no reason to distinguish between ordinary income and carried interest.  Numerous studies have shown carried interest does not result in the creation of more jobs.  (The reason lobbyists claimed for why it should be taxed at a lower rate...to reward risk takers like Romney)  This is a gigantic give-away to the 1% which they pressured Congress to create.  Obama tried to change the tax rate on carried interest.  Guess how much success he had on that?  Guess what Romney and his regressive supporter's position was on that issue?

   I suspect the 13% figure is an average of some sort.  I suspect Romney won't release his tax returns because there were years he paid a lot less, if not zero, in taxes.  I am amazed at how tone-deaf Romney and his campaign is to the concerns of average Americans.  Tone-deaf enough to proudly announce what chumps the rest of us are and how brilliant Romany and his accountant turned out to be.

A WOMAN'S WORK IS NEVER DONE AND NOW IT'S ABOUT TO GET WORSE...

 MItt Romney’s choice of Congressman Paul Ryan confirms Romney has abandoned any attempt to moderate his views or to close the gender gap.  Ryan's budget proposals, his antipathy towards Medicaid, his opposition to choice are just a few examples of how women will be affected if his policies are implemented.  Romney has now acknowledged he will not win by seeking common ground with undecided, independent or women voters, but is only going to win if he can get the extreme regressive wing of his party to turn out in large enough numbers to support his candidacy.

     Conversely, President Obama's re-election will hinge on his base turning out and voting.  It is a base disillusioned by Obama for a variety of reasons, but with the Ryan choice, Romney now is committed not only to killing affordable health care, but to ending Social Security and Medicare as entitlements, cutting taxes for the 1%, increasing military spending and either expanding the deficit or raising taxes on the middle class and working poor.  Obama's base of African Americans, Hispanics, women, young people and independents would take the brunt of the Romney/Ryan evisceration of the social safety net, roll-back of environmental regulations and murder of the Dodd/Frank Financial Services Reform Act resulting in Wall Street returning to business as usual.  (How is that for a nightmare scenario?)  If they cannot see their own enlightened self-interest being served by a re-elected President Obama, then they will get a radical agenda and no seat at the table.

     Over 40% of Americans say they don't know much about Ryan.  Let's start with his Catholicism.  Ryan is a regressive Catholic.  He is more committed to his idol, Ayn Rand, than he is to his Christianity.  He has morphed Jesus into someone who would cut programs for the poor, support survival of the fittest and encourage free market rapaciousness all in the name of God.  He claims the Church supports his budget proposals to balance the budget on the backs of women, children and the poor.  If not for the resurrection, Jesus would be spinning in His grave at Ryan's calumny. (When you inspire seven nuns to create a bus tour to refute your interpretation of scripture, you are definitely out of the mainstream.)

     Ryan wants to repeal the Affordable Care Act which would expand health coverage to over 17 million women.  If the ACA is repealed, health insurance companies could continue to charge women higher premiums than men, refuse to cover maternity care and deny women contraceptive access.  As a Catholic, Ryan supports allowing Catholic businesses to deny contraception access as a part of their health care options.

     Ryan's wants to increase military spending and cut taxes for the top 1%.  To offset revenue losses, he would cut funds for non-defense discretionary programs such as childcare, Head Start, Pell Grants (for college-age students from middle class families), housing and energy assistance programs.  He would cut non-defense discretionary programs, which support millions of women and children, by $1.2 trillion while increasing military spending by over $200 billion over 10 years.

     Ryan's budget would cut Food Stamps by 17% over ten years affectively eliminating 8 million people, mostly women and children, and he would cut Supplemental Security Income (SSI) and Temporary Assistance to Needy Families.  Women represent 66% of SSI beneficiaries and 86% of TANF clients.  He voted to end federal funding for Planned Parenthood and would outlaw all abortions with no exceptions for rape, incest or the life of the mother.  He is in favor of a personhood amendment to the Constitution giving full civil rights to a fertilized egg and ending a number of forms of contraception.

     Neither Romney nor Ryan denies any of these assertions.  What is most interesting is Ryan justifies his draconian budget as the only way to address the looming budget deficit.  The only problem is his budget proposal, if adopted, would actually add to the deficit over the next 10 years, not balance it.  He cuts taxes for the rich, increases military spending and takes a meat-ax to almost all other programs and the end result is a higher deficit?

     Nothing about either Romney or Ryan's resumes are indicative of a concern about jobs or expanding the economic pie to a larger percentage of Americans.  There is plenty of evidence they are willing to protect the 1% at the expense of women and children.  Choosing Ryan shows Romney is not interested in expanding his appeal to independents and undecided voters.  He has doubled down on winning by energizing the Tea Party/extreme regressive wing of his party to get them to turn out in November.

     The question is will Obama's base now respond in kind...get energized...turn out and vote in numbers similar to 2008?  If they do, Obama wins.  If they don't, Ryan and Palin and Grover Norquist and Wall Street win.

 

     In the next 100 days, every time you hear Romney/Ryan talk about jobs and the economy, understand it is all fluff and cover for a social agenda Romney has capitulated to in order to get elected.  It is now a clear stark choice.  Which ever side can turn out its base will win.

GO AHEAD AND DO THE CRIME...THERE AIN'T NO TIME...

 The Obama justice department just announced it would not bring criminal charges against anyone at Goldman Sachs.  After an exhaustive (their word) investigation, no one at the Justice(?) Department could come up with a single law which Goldman violated.  This continues a pattern of failing to convict even one of the architects of a global robbery which almost destroyed the world's economic framework.

     After the repeal of the Glass-Steagle Act, commercial and investment banks became one and they were free to gamble with depositor's money knowing they were backed by a federal guarantee not to let them fail.  Starting in 2000, these casinos began creating and selling derivatives, collateralized debt, swaps and other vehicles most of which these geniuses had no idea how to value or evaluate their risk.  (They used algorithms devised by M.I.T. graduates who totally failed to adequately assess or predict risk)  The greedier they grew, the more exotic the offerings.  Eventually, they began to offer packages of sub-prime mortgages bundled together, which they knew would fail miserably, and sold them while at the same time betting against them and making billions.  They were no different than Madoff or Sanford.  They were creating and selling fraud and profiting from it.

     Goldman Sachs created a package of securities christened "Abacus".  They allowed a privileged customer and trader, John Paulsen, to pick which blighted properties would go into this toxic soup.  Then Paulsen, and Sachs, took positions betting against their own product.  They made sure it would sink and made money off the suckers they induced to invest.  This practice, and many others like it, robbed, de-frauded, cheated investors out of billions of dollars and exposed the banks to such extreme jeopardy, the American taxpayer had to bail them out to the tune of trillions of dollars.  Yet, the Justice Department could not find any crime they committed.

     Goldman paid hundreds of millions of dollars in a civil settlement, without having to admit any wrongdoing, as have numerous other banks.  This continues a pattern of the very rich and powerful buying their way out of jail.  Angelo Mazzillo, the CEO of Countrywide Savings and Loan, was one of the worst offenders on sub-prime mortgages.  He paid a $70 million fine, about 1/10th of his net worth, and no criminal charges were pursued.  It is clear there is a different set of criminal statutes for the rich than for average Americans.

     More recently, Barclays Bank paid over $400 million in fines for manipulating the LIBOR lending rate which affects trillions of dollars of loans each day.  Sixteen other banks also engaged in this manipulation and are under investigation.  (Can you say conspiracy?)  New York bank regulators announced the British bank Standard Chartered PLC would pay $340 million to settle allegations they were laundering money for Iran in violation of American law.  Another American bank stands accused of laundering perhaps billions of drug cartel dollars.  Again, no criminal charges for anyone involved.

     If the Justice Department is telling the truth...if they really can't find a criminal statute to use against these thieves and bunko artists, then Congress should do what it always does in cases like this...pass new more restrictive criminal laws.  When the F.B.I. had trouble busting mobsters, Congress passed the R.I.C.O. Act.  This law is credited with breaking the mob's hold in this country.  In the drug wars, conspiracy laws are the prime weapons the feds use to convict.  They don't have to find you with drugs.  Even without evidence, a photograph, wiretap or actual drugs on your person, they can still get a conviction if someone else is willing to testify to dealing with you thus creating a conspiracy.  Easily half the federal drug convictions involve defendants accused of a conspiracy and in many cases there is no physical evidence of drug use or possession at any time (scary if you think about it).

     The government invented new criminal statutes to get the people they wanted to get.  I've told you about sole liability laws, thousands of them, where you don't even have to know you broke the law and yet can still be convicted.  The government, and Congress, pride themselves on being tough on crime, but it appears they are only tough in poor and urban areas and with people who don't have much power and clout.  Every year they pass more laws to lock up more folks, yet not a single official of any bank, brokerage, insurance company or securities firm has even been charged with a criminal offense, because the Justice Department can't find anything to charge them with.

     I wish my pen, or my vocabulary, were capable of writing or communicating the derision and contempt I have for this turn of events.  These institutions, and their executives, engaged in massive fraud, theft, destruction of wealth and endangered national security and they walk away scot free from it?  Not only do they skate, but you had to pay for their thieving ways.  If even you need proof the 1% operate in a different world, with different standards, different consequences and different results than you or I, this is proof.

     The definition of a fascist state is one in which everything is illegal and the government decides what to prosecute and what to let go.  The definition of a fascist/oligarch-state is one in which everything is illegal for most, but a small privileged class of people.  Our republic is in serious danger of collapsing from internal rot as we see our tax code, (returns Gov. Romney?) banking laws, drug laws etc written in such as to exempt the 1% from any reckoning.  Given the state of our civil liberties, it means no American is safe from those with the most money and power.

BLOOD MONEY...

One of the blackest marks on American foreign policy was this nation's support of right-wing death squads in El Salvador in the late 70's and 80's.  Of the 70,000 citizens killed in that nation's civil war, international human rights reports attribute 65,000 of those deaths to the forces of the ARENA party and its leader Roberto D'Aubuisson.  Now the Huntington Post is reporting Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney became rich using money from Salvadoran oligarchs who also financed the death squads.

     The Post has all the details, but the gist of the story is Romney needed money to start Bain Capital.  He went to Miami to solicit funds from 8 families who fled there when civil war broke out in El Salvador.  At least two of the most infamous families gave Romney about $9 million which was 40% of initial capital used to start Bain Capital.  These same families were funneling money to ARENA to fund its death squads, which executed as many as 30 people a day at the height of the war.  They also poured money into Republican coffers, particularly Ronald Reagan, who in return sponsored and protected D'Aubuisson against congressional criticism and attempts to cut off American aid to these murderers.

     To this day, Romney is still receiving millions of dollars in income from Bain Capital, money he would not have were it not for the help of these Salvadoran investors.  These families owned 90% of all land in El Salvador, and when the people finally revolted, they poured money into ARENA to crush the rebellion and protect their wealth.

     Maybe you don't remember the ARENA party or even D'Aubuisson.  It's possible you do remember the murder and rape of 4 American nuns who worked with the poor in El Salvador.  Or perhaps you remember the men who broke into the Jesuit seminary in San Salvador and executed 6 Jesuit priests and their housekeeper because they expressed sympathy for the poor and condemned the violence of the death squads.  You must remember the most notorious act of D'Aubuisson and company when he ordered armed men to walk into the cathedral of San Salvador and execute Archbishop Oscar Romero at the altar while he was celebrating Mass.  All of these actions, and much more, were financed by the same families who invested in Bain Capital.  In fact, Romney increased their wealth enabling them to increase the violence and enhance the murder of men, women and children.

     Romney's people claim he vetted these families and found nothing incriminating in their backgrounds.  It reminds me of Sgt. Schultz in Hogan's Heroes..."..I see nothing...I hear nothing."  As early as 1978, the U.S. Ambassador to El Salvador, Robert White, identified these families and their role in the death squads.  They were accused of funding assassination plots in Guatemala.  It would have been impossible not to know of the source of their wealth and their support of D'Aubuisson.  D'Aubuisson was the darling of the Republican establishment (of which Romney was a part).  Reagan funneled billions of dollars to ARENA.  The infamous School of the Americas, an American military academy, trained the Salvadoran military on how to put down a rebellion including how to torture, rape, kidnap and execute opponents.  North Carolina Senator Jesse Helms championed D'Aubuisson and sponsored a trip for him to Washington to gin up support for him and his cause.  All of this at the same time reports were published, and events documented, about mass murder, torture, political executions all carried out by ARENA sponsored militias.  (FYI...A New York Times reporter broke the story of a mass grave filled with dozens of bodies and reported on ARENA and D'Aubuisson's involvement.  The Reagan administration denied the connection and pressured the Times to fire the reporter.  They did.  Only to find out later he was absolutely accurate...so much for an independent media.)

     For Romney to claim he didn't know about these family's involvement in all of this defies credibility...it is incredible.  What is much more likely is he knew and didn't care.  He knew, as did Reagan, Helms, the C.I.A. etc, and approved of these tactics because the rebels were "communists" receiving aid from Fidel Castro.  Romney's wealth is directly tied to Bain Capital and Bain Capital only exists because he was able to find investors including these Salvadoran oligarchs to get it off the ground.

     Oscar Romero, the 4 murdered nuns, the Jesuits and their housekeeper and 65,000 others were murdered because they wanted justice.  They had the courage to speak out against the immorality of crushing poverty caused by 8 families owning all of the land and the political party using terrorism to protect their interests.  Mitt Romney also protected their interests and increased their wealth at the very time this wealth was paying for bullets in the back of the head of innocent people.  His claim of ignorance does not wash.  What does make sense is it didn't bother him in the least.

     The reason Romney's flip-flops on issues are important is not because he changed his mind, but because they show a pattern of a man willing to do anything...say anything...ignore anything...to get ahead, or more recently, to get elected.  He was willing to accept the blood money in order to get Bain Capital started.  He was wiling to ignore the murders and executions and assassinations because he stood to get rich if Bain was successful.  These recent revelations reveal Romney to be a moral windsock blowing in any direction the wind blows in order to achieve his goals.

     I don't expect this story to have very long legs.  Most Americans have no memory of El Salvador, or the civil war, the sanctuary movement and the role our government played in propping up regressive dictatorships throughout Latin America.  Most Americans do not know about this nation's role in facilitating the deaths of tens of thousands whose only crime was a desire for justice.  However, for me, this new information shows a cynical, calculating, morally ambiguous man willing to do anything to get ahead.  What will he do to get elected and what is he willing to do to hold on to the office?

NOTHING IS FOR SURE EXCEPT FOR DEATH AND ???

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid says he spoke to a highly placed source at Bain Capital and was told former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney hasn't paid any federal taxes for 10 years.  Let the weeping and gnashing of teeth begin.

     The head of the Republican Party called Reid a "dirty liar".  Republican senators attacked Reid for making "baseless" accusations.  Still others accused Reid, and President Obama, of using Romney's tax returns as a distraction from the real issue in this election, the economy.  Romney himself told Reid to "put up or shut up".  Other than Romney himself, however, the rest of Reid's critics have no idea if the accusation is true or not.

     Romney could end all of this speculation quickly.  If he were to release the last five years of tax returns, he could embarrass Reid and Obama and end this kind of talk once and for all.  Romney could end this distraction which Republicans say they decry.  Yet, Reid and Obama seem to believe he will not release any more taxes and the accusations will continue to fly.  With prominent Republicans also calling on Romney to release more information, the question which hangs out so obviously is why he won't release more returns?  The implication of his actions suggests where there is smoke, there's fire...there is something to hide.

     I have no idea if Romney paid taxes or not.  However, given how rich he is, and given his use of tax shelters in the Bahamas and Grand Cayman Islands, and his use of Swiss bank accounts, it is easy to see how he could have used tax loopholes and exemptions to shelter the vast majority of his income from the I.R.S.

     If Romney avoided taxes on hundreds of millions of dollars in income, I guarantee every step he took, every deduction he claimed was completely legal.  I do not believe for one minute Romney committed any crime or fraud in figuring out ways to avoid a large tax bite.  The tax code is designed so the more money you have, the easier it is to avoid taxes.  Corporations, trusts, offshore accounts can all be used to shelter your money.  There are people who arrange to lose money on deal in December that they will recoup in January, but they still get to write off the loss in the previous year.  Rich owners of sports teams can even depreciate the value of the athletes in their employ.  Perhaps my favorite provision allows the rich to spend money lobbying Congress for more tax breaks and then deduct that money as a business expense and reduce their tax burden even more.

     In Romney's case, since the majority of his income appears to come from investments, this income is considered "carried interest" and gets taxed at a 15% rate rather than 36%.  This quickly reduces his taxes even though there is no evidence "carried interest" provisions have resulted in increased investment or the creation of large numbers of new jobs (the argument which was made when lobbyists pushed this loophole asking for investment income to be treated differently than earned income).

     Romney "legally" may not have paid any taxes for 10 years.  He followed the rules.  Yet, he knows his presidential hopes would be dashed if middle class Americans found out he made tens of millions of dollars and didn't pay any federal taxes on them.  Romney would be toast as far as Americans who make between $100,000-200,000 are concerned.  They are hammered year in and year out by all kinds of taxes and particularly by the Alternative Minimum Tax, which eliminates many standard deductions and dramatically raises their tax bill.  Romney appears to have figured out how to avoid the AMT and this will not endear him to successful, but still middle class, voters.

     Perhaps this is unfair.  Why should Romney be excoriated for using the arcane tax rules to his benefit?  Why should he suffer because he can afford tax lawyers and accountants who can hide or shelter his income?  Why should his hopes for the White House suffer because he knows how to play the game?

     90% of all Americans could do their taxes on the back of a postcard.  One blank for income...a second for standard deductions and a third for the result of subtracting one from the other.  The thousands of pages of tax laws are for those who want some way to claim they didn't make as much as they really did.  Unfortunately, most Americans cannot take advantage of all these escape hatches and they pay what the government demands.

     If Romney were to release returns which show he avoided paying taxes while most Americans were paying through the nose, he knows, and most of his rich colleagues know, there would be a wave of anger which would wash across this country and a call for real tax reform would echo from sea to shining sea. (It should happen anyway.)  Romney, and his ilk, are paying taxes at the lowest rates since the 50's.  Revenue from taxes, into the government treasury, is down by more than 1/3.  Rebuilding bridges and roads...creating a new and reliable electrical grid...improving education and providing funding for cutting edge research and innovation...retraining workers...are all vital tasks needed to keep our nation competitive and keep the American dream of a strong middle class alive.  A system that allows the rich, and corporations, to game it for their individual benefit corrodes trust and confidence in the system as a whole.

     Harry Reid may be a liar, or he may be telling the truth, but Romney is the only one who knows and he ain't talkin'.  Why not?