Pages

Tuesday, April 17, 2012

Women job losses: A deeper look at the data




Posted by at 06:00 AM ET, 04/17/2012


(Tim Boyle/Bloomberg) “And if you look at the damage early on, you know, most of the early job losses were in construction and manufacturing, and disproportionately affected men. But as the crisis intensified, as it did over the course of 2008 — again, before the president came into office — the damage spread and you saw state and local governments, for example, cut back into teachers, fired a lot of teachers, let a lot of teachers go. And a lot of women teach, so you saw the composition of those job losses change over the course of the recovery.”

— Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” April 15, 2012

We criticized Republicans last week for promoting the “true but false” assertion that under Obama, women have lost seven times as many jobs as men. This did not stop the Mitt Romney campaign from trying to promote this idea, which Treasury Secretary Geithner on Sunday labeled “ridiculous and deeply misleading.”

 We did not think much of the GOP claim because, even though the numbers added up,  it is silly to think any economy begins or ends with a presidency. Over the course of the recession (December 2007 to June 2009), the number of jobs declined by just over 5 million, with women accounting for nearly 1.8 million of that figure.

 Still, since the recession ended, 2.2 million jobs have been added under Obama, with women accounting for just 284,000 of that figure. So something’s going on. Geithner’s theory — that women started to lose jobs later in the recession — is an interesting one, so we decided to dig deep in the Bureau of Labor Statistics database for some answers.


The Facts

 Teaching (listed in the BLS database as “local government-education”) represents about 9 percent of the jobs held by women in the United States. The data show that, since Obama became president, a larger proportion of the overall job loss by women — 22.7 percent — has been in teaching positions.


In fact, more than a third of female job losses have been in local government jobs; the number of female-held jobs in the federal government has also declined by about 51,000, while state government declines have been marginal. (Since the numbers in the local government section of the database are not seasonally adjusted, we compared figures for January 2009 with January 2012. Comparing figures of the same month is more accurate, especially in teaching.)

 Interestingly, the data suggest that local teaching positions held by women climbed by 124,000 in the year before Obama became president, even as the rest of the economy was collapsing. This made the decline feel even steeper when teaching jobs began to decline in earnest toward the beginning of 2010, as federal stimulus money from 2009 began to fade and local governments ran short of funds.

 Okay, that kind of supports Geithner’s narrative, though he seemed to suggest that much of this happened before Obama became president, not after. Moreover, it does not explain where the rest of the jobs for women have gone during Obama’s presidency. 

 That’s because women have not just lost public-sector jobs under Obama. Women have also lost private-sector jobs — some 243,000, compared to a gain of 82,000 in the same period for men.

 Clicking through the various job categories, one finds one negative number after another for women — in construction, in manufacturing, in financial services, in retail, in information and so forth. These categories do not even show any uptick from the end of the recession. 

 One of the few bright spots for women is professional and business services (which includes lawyers, accountants, computer systems and the like), which shows a gain of more than 400,000 jobs since the recession ended. The leisure and hospitality industry also shows a marginal gain.

 While Geithner said that “early losses” were in construction and manufacturing, slightly more construction jobs have been lost after Obama became president rather than before; manufacturing jobs also have continue to drop sharply. A large chunk of the gains for men has also come in professional and business services, as well as durable goods (such as building automobiles) and in transportation. Women, meanwhile, have continued to lose jobs in durable goods and transportation.
 A Treasury Department official defended Geithner’s statement, but would not do so on the record. 
“One feature of the recovery is that while employment in the private sector has started to come back, government employment is still falling,” the official said. “Moreover, of those changes in government employment, a large share are accounted for by changes in local government educational services (i.e. teachers).”

The official added: “If you compare employment changes from December 2007 to January 2009 versus January 2009 to March 2012, government represents the only sector that has performed much worse. Every other industry has either had relatively similar job changes on net across the two time periods (e.g. construction) or is doing much better (e.g. manufacturing, professional and business services, retail trade, leisure and hospitality, transportation and warehousing, mining and logging, etc.).”

“Every sector is doing better from February 2010 – March 2012 (most substantially so) than they were from January 2009 – February 2010, while government job losses have accelerated over that period,” the official said. “Teachers represent a large proportion of these state and local government job losses, which is why the Secretary highlighted them.”

The Pinocchio Test


 Geithner’s explanation appears incomplete. Certainly the decline in teaching — and government — jobs has been a drag on overall employment for women in recent months, but it’s not the whole story. We continue to frown on measuring job losses or job gains from the start of a presidency, but even our preferred metric of dating the trends from the start of the recovery suggest that women are not faring as well as men in this economy. 

 We were tempted to say this was worth a Pinocchio, simply because Geithner’s explanation seems so facile. The data suggest a more complicated picture. But given that the data change depending on the dates used, we remain reluctant at this point to attach too much significance to the results. Certainly, the trends are worth watching.

 Verdict Pending

(About our rating scale)


Posted by at No comments:

MEMO: 12 Things We Could Learn From Previous Romney Tax Returns

  • Derek Pearce
  • Jan 27, 2012
    3:43 pm
I do not know anything about taxes, loop-holes, advantages, off shore investments, but some where there is alot more to this than meets the eye. And Romney needs to come clean.
Several factors have played into Romney’s precipitous drops with the most recent focused on his taxes — from his initial refusal to be open with the American people, to releasing only one year which showed overseas investments and a 13% tax rate, to the latest revelation that his release was riddled with errors and omissions.

Credit: Tom LeGro/NewsHour
To: Interested Parties
From: Rodell Mollineau, President American Bridge 21st Century
RE: Sunday Show Memo- 12 Things We Could Learn From Previous Romney Tax Returns
Date: January 27, 2012

Mitt Romney is in a very dangerous position. According to a Washington Post/ABC survey released on Tuesday, in the last two weeks Romney’s favorability/unfavorability rating has completely inverted, and now stands at 31% favorable and 49% unfavorable. An NBC/WSJ poll released Thursday shows similar results with only 31% of voters saying they have a positive view of Romney. If Romney is able to get out of the primary, having such high unfavorabilities will be incredibly damaging with independent voters.

These factors have only succeeded in raising more questions than answers. It cannot be stated enough: One year of taxes is simply unacceptable. It is too easy to scrub these returns, and one year does not paint an accurate picture for the voters of how Romney amassed his personal fortune.

Below are 12 questions that Mitt Romney needs to answer by releasing his previous years’ tax returns.

1: What was Romney’s tax rate in earlier years? Romney’s 2010 tax rate was 13.9%, but was it even lower in previous years?

Romney Paid A 13.9 Percent Tax Rate In 2010 On $21.7 Million In Income. According to Bloomberg, Romney “earned $21.6 million in 2010 and paid 13.9 percent of that amount in income taxes, using the preferential rate on investment income and charitable deductions to pay a smaller share of his earnings than top wage earners typically do. The former private-equity executive and Massachusetts governor earned more than half of his income from capital gains and dividends, which are taxed at a top rate of 15 percent, rather than the 35 percent top rate for ordinary income. […] Romney’s income puts him near the very top of U.S. taxpayers.” [BusinessWeek, Bloomberg, 01/24/12]

2: What other foreign bank accounts did Romney hold? As has been widely reported, Romney held accounts in Switzerland, Ireland, and the Grand Caymans. How many more are hidden in previous years’ returns?

Romney Held Much More Funds in Foreign Accounts in Previous Years Than He Did in 2010 And 2011. According to Mitt Romney’s 2011 estimated taxes, he paid $67,173 in foreign taxes in 2010. However, he also discloses that in 2005, he paid $333,149 in foreign taxes; paid $276,386 in 2006; $275,288 in 2007; and $151,015 in 2008. [Romney 2011 Tax Estimate, page 81]

Additionally: Romney failed to disclose IRS form TD-F 90-22. Holders of foreign bank accounts are required to complete this form and submit it separate from their tax returns. Romney opted not to disclose the form.

Romney Listed A Swiss Bank Account On His 2010 Tax Return. According to the Boston Globe, “Advisers to Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney are acknowledging that he once had a Swiss bank account but that it was closed in 2010 as prepared to enter the race for the White House. The Swiss account is listed on Romney’s newly released 2010 federal income tax return. It had been opened by a Boston lawyer who oversees the Romney family investments and a blind trust containing millions of dollars in assets.” [Boston Globe, 01/24/12]


3: In a surprising revelation, Romney’s tax returns indicated a continuing (and confusing) relationship with Bain Capital, even though Romney claims to have severed his relationship in February 1999. His previous tax returns could shed more light on this ongoing relationship.



The Ann D. Romney Blind Trust Listed A Partnership Interest In Bain Capital Partners (Am) X, Lp. Mitt Romney’s tax returns included a transfer notice of a Bain Capital Partners (AM)X LP to the Ann Romney trust. The value of the property at election was listed as $0. According to the document “The interest in the future appreciation of the Partnership’s business to which I am entitled pursuant to my partnership interest is subject to forfeiture if I cease performing services for the Partnership.” The document was signed by Romney trustee Bradford Malt. [Mitt Romney 2010 Tax Filing Pg. 131-132]



4: Did Romney pay the Unrelated Business Income Tax (UBIT) tax on his multi-million dollar IRA? If not, do Romney’s earlier taxes shed light on using off-shore “blocker” corporations to avoid the UBIT Tax) on his multi-million dollar IRA?



Mitt Romney Obtained A Multi-Million Dollar Ira By Investing Retirement Funds In Bain Capital. According to Wall Street Journal, “Like many Americans, Mitt Romney has an individual retirement account. Unlike most Americans, Mr. Romney has between $20.7 million and $101.6 million in it, a big chunk of his fortune. Experts on estate planning said it is highly unusual to accumulate such a considerable sum in an IRA, an investment vehicle restricted by annual contribution limits. It appears that Mr. Romney’s grew so large mostly because it holds investments in Bain Capital, the private-equity firm he helped start.” [Wall Street Journal, 1/19/12]




Investments In Companies That Use Debt To Buy Companies Would Normally Be Subject To The Ubit Tax. According to Wall Street Journal, “Under current tax law, anybody investing an IRA in a private-equity fund, as Mr. Romney did, would likely incur a hefty special tax on ‘unrelated business income,’ also known as UBIT. This tax, assessed at a maximum 35% rate, is meant to discourage tax-exempt entities such as an IRA, pension plan or endowment fund from unfairly competing with for-profit, taxpaying entities by operating a business without paying taxes on it. Investing in a partnership that uses debt to buy companies would trigger the tax, experts said.


It Is Unknown If Romney Paid The Ubit Tax, But He May Have Avoided It By Using An “Offshore Blocker Corporation.” According to Wall Street Journal, “It isn’t known whether Mr. Romney paid UBIT. His filings suggest use of a strategy involving offshore funds sometimes employed to avoid it, according to several experts. One method used by tax lawyers is to have the IRA invest through an offshore affiliate of the private-equity firm, known as an offshore blocker corporation, which in turn invests the same money in the private-equity partnership. The tax is avoided because the IRA technically is investing in the offshore corporation, not in a private-equity partnership.’ [Wall Street Journal, 1/19/12]” [Wall Street Journal, 1/19/12]


5: To which additional charities did Romney contribute? Did those charities contradict his publically stated values? Already his returns showed contributions to anti-gay groups, even though he previously sought the endorsement of the Log Cabin Republicans.

Romney’s 2010 Tax Returns Showed He Contributed $35,000 To Anti-Gay Groups “Massachusetts Family Institute” And The“Beckett Fund.” According to Human Rights Campaign, “The tax returns for Mitt Romney’s charitable foundation reveal that the GOP presidential hopeful has given at least $35,000 in recent years to groups actively working to halt the spread of LGBT equality and, in some cases, intentionally demonize LGBT people. [According] to CNN, Romney donated to the extremist group Massachusetts Family Institute, as well as the Becket Fund. The Massachusetts Family Institute received $10,000 from Romney in 2006, while the Beckett Fund received $25,000 in 2009. The donations came from the Tyler Charitable Foundation, set up and funded by the Romneys. The Massachusetts Family Institute has long been a vocal opponent of marriage equality, and believes sexual orientation is a choice that can be cured. From their website: ‘Our compassion is for those struggling with same-sex attraction and we encourage the healing of individuals who wish to change their choice of lifestyle…’ The group also is ruthless in its dedication to distorting programs intended to reduce bullying and make schools safer, more welcoming environments for all students. It says gay-straight alliances may violate the Constitution and parental rights, and says associated programming pushes a radical, pro-homosexual agenda.” [Human Rights Campaign, 01/24/12]

Romney Received The Log Cabin Republicans Endorsement After He Assured Them That He Would Provide More Effective Leadership Than Kennedy On Establishing “Full Equality For America’s Gay And Lesbian Citizens.” “Shortly after he won the GOP nomination to run against US Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, conservative businessman Mitt Romney – who is viewed with suspicion by some gays – wrote to the Log Cabin Club, a group of politically active gay Republicans, to assure them that ‘as we seek to establish full equality for America’s gay and lesbian citizens, I will provide more effective leadership than my opponent.’ The group has since endorsed Romney.” [Boston Globe, 10/17/94]

LIAR, LIAR PANTS ON FIRE!!! MR FLIP-FLOP(mine)

6: Did Romney claim tax deductions that were part of the stimulus? In 2010, Romney claimed a Making Work Pay Tax Deduction, although the source of that deduction is unclear without the release of additional K-1 Forms. Did any of Romney’s businesses claim tax deductions from the stimulus? Did Romney derive additional benefits from the stimulus in other unexpected ways?

The Stimulus Contained Tax Increased Benefits For Businesses Including The Making Work Pay Tax Credit, Work Opportunity Tax Credit, Cobra, Energy Efficiency And Renewable Energy Initiatives, And Net Operating Loss Carryback. According to the IRS, “Making Work Pay Tax Credit. The 2010 withholding rates, contained in Notice 1036, reflected reduced withholding. An optional withholding procedure was available for pension plan administrators. Work Opportunity Tax Credit. This expanded credit added returning veterans and “disconnected youth” to the list of new hires that businesses may claim. COBRA: Health Insurance Continuation Subsidy. The IRS has extensive guidance for employers, including an updated Form 941. Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Incentives. See what businesses can do to reap tax rewards. Net Operating Loss Carryback. Small businesses can offset losses by getting refunds on taxes paid up to five years ago. Find information on carrybacks, an expanded section 179 deduction and other business-related provisions. The Worker, Homeownership And Business Assistance Act Of 2009 (WHBAA) expanded the five-year NOL carryback to most businesses.” [IRS, Viewed 1/24/12]

In 2010, Romney Claimed A Work Opportunity Credit – Provided No Documentation Of The Source Of The Credit, But It Passed Through A Corporate Entity. According to Romney’s Form 5884 filed with his 1040, Romney claimed a making work pay tax benefit for an employee “from partnerships, S corporations, cooperatives, estates, and trusts.” The form does not indicate which Romney entity employed the worker, not does it indicate any information about the worker. The form indicates the credit would be part of a K-1 filing, which Romney did not release. [Mitt Romney 2010 Tax Filing Pg. 77]

The Stimulus Expanded Eligibility For The Work Opportunity Tax Credit.  According to the IRS, “The following Recovery Act provisions affect businesses: …Work Opportunity Tax Credit. This expanded credit added returning veterans and “disconnected youth” to the list of new hires that businesses may claim.” [IRS, Viewed 1/24/12]

7: How many additional household workers did Romney employ? Did he pay them fair wages?

Romney Paid $20,603 Total In Wages To Four Household Workers In 2010. According to the Huffington Post, “IRS forms released Tuesday by Mitt Romney’s presidential campaign show that despite reporting income of $21.7 million, the couple paid only $20,603 in taxable wages for household help in 2010. This figure was divided among four women: Rosania Costa ($4,808), Kelli Harrison ($8,667), Susan Moore ($2,238) and Valerie Cravens Anae ($4,890).” [Huffington Post, 01/24/12]

Romney Paid Only Half Of The Lowest Range Of An Average Housekeeper’s Salary For Only One Of Romney’s Three Houses. According the Huffington Post, “According to a number of Boston-based domestic staffing agencies, the salary range for a housekeeper is between $20 and $30 an hour, which adds up to an annual salary of $40,000 to $50,000 based on forty-hour weeks and two weeks of paid vacation a year. But this number is only for one house, and the Romneys have three houses — a 2,000 sq. ft. townhouse in Belmont, Mass., a 5,400 sq. ft. lake house on 11 acres in Wolfeboro, N.H., and a beach house in La Jolla, Calif., that is undergoing renovations to double its size. Even if the Romneys avoided spending time in La Jolla in 2010, they spent plenty of time in New Hampshire, with regular visits in the summer from five sons and their families. Yet the Romneys still paid only half of the lowest range of an average housekeeper’s salary, which raises the question of who cleaned the Romney houses the other 50 percent of the time.” [Huffington Post, 01/24/12]

8: What was Romney’s tax relationship with previously reported tax havens? In 2007, the LA Times reported Romney’s connection to funds in Bermuda and the Caymans. His tax returns for previous years could shed light on his relationships with those funds.

Romney Was “Listed As A General Partner And Personally Invested In BCIP Associates III Cayman,” A Fund That Was Registered As A Post Office Box In The Cayman Islands And Paid Him $1 Million In 2006. According to the LA Times, “In the Cayman Islands, Romney was listed as a general partner and personally invested in BCIP Associates III Cayman, a private equity fund that is registered at a post office box on Grand Cayman Island and that indirectly buys equity in U.S. companies. The arrangement shields foreign investors from U.S. taxes they would pay for investing in U.S. companies. Romney still retains an investment in the Cayman fund through a trust. Campaign disclosure forms show the investment paid him more than $1 million last year in dividends, interest and capital gains.” [LA Times, 12/17/07]

Romney “Served As President And Sole Shareholder” Of Sankaty High Yield Asset Investors Ltd. In Bermuda—The Fund Had No Staff In Bermuda And “It’s Only Presence Consists Of A Nameplate At A Lawyers Office.” According to the LA Times, “In Bermuda, Romney served as president and sole shareholder for four years of Sankaty High Yield Asset Investors Ltd. It funneled money into Bain Capital’s Sankaty family of hedge funds, which invest in bonds and other debt issued by corporations, as well as bank loans. Like thousands of similar financial entities, Sankaty maintains no office or staff in Bermuda. Its only presence consists of a nameplate at a lawyer’s office in downtown Hamilton, capital of the British island territory. ‘It’s just a mail drop, essentially,’ said Marc B. Wolpow, who worked with Romney for nine years at Bain Capital and who set up Sankaty Ltd. in October 1997 without ever visiting Bermuda. ‘There’s no one doing any work down there other than lawyers.’ Investing through what’s known as a blocker corporation in Bermuda protects tax-exempt American institutions, such as pension plans, hospitals and university endowments, from paying a 35% tax on what the Internal Revenue Service calls ‘unrelated business income’ from domestic hedge funds that invest in debt, experts say.” [LA Times, 12/17/07]

9: What did Romney’s taxes look like before his assets were in blind trusts?  Did they change dramatically as he prepared for a political career?

2003: Romney’s Investments Were Transferred Over to Blind Trusts.  By 2003, Romney’s investments were placed into a blind trust managed by attorneys from law firm Ropes & Gray.  Details of the holdings of Romney’s blind trust were not required to be disclosed according to statutes of the Massachusetts State Ethics Commission.  Romney’s family trust disclosures read, “Various investments and securities at the discretion of the trustee.  Under the terms of the blind trust, the Governor may have no knowledge of the specific holdings or management of the trust, except that the beneficiary may direct, and the trustee may report, investment allocation and performance of the trust by broad categories (i.e. publicly traded stocks, publicly traded taxable bonds, public traded tax exempt bonds, etc.).”  [Statement of Financial Interests, Massachusetts State Ethics Commission, 2003, 2004, 2005]

10: What was Romney’s relationship with Bain Capital affiliate Mesoamerica? Mesoamerica was a Costa Rican based investment fund that housed investments in Central American businesses. What was Romney’s tax rate on those investments?

2001-2002: Romney Held an Equity Stake in a Costa Rica-Based Private Equity Fund Which Invested in Central American Businesses.  Romney’s 2001 and 2002 Statements of Financial Interests indicate that he held 1.09 percent stake in MesoAmerica Fund I LP, a private equity fund based in Escazu, Costa Rica.  The fund invested in business located in Central America.  The fund’s office was located at Plaza Roble, Edificio El Portico, Piso , in Escazu, Costa Rica.  [Statement of Financial Interests, Massachusetts State Ethics Commission, 2001, 2002; MesoAmerica, "History of Investments," www.mesoamerica.com]

Mesoamerica’s Shared Investment Strategy Of “Sister Organizations Bain & Company And Bain Capital.”  According to Mesoamerica’s website, “The origins of Mesoamerica are based on a clear focus on strategy that we share with our sister organizations Bain & Company and Bain Capital.  Mesoamerica began in 1996 as a private equity fund; the investment banking and strategic consulting practices were added in 1998 with the creation of Mesoamerica Investments, founded by Harry Strachan, Luis Javier Castro, Alejandro Lozano and Julius Landell-Mills.”  [MesoAmerica, “About MesoAmerica,” www.mesoamerica.com]

11: How much did Romney save from the Bush tax cuts? Romney supports extending the Bush tax cuts permanently. It’s only fair to ask how much it saved him personally. Releasing tax returns from earlier years would facilitate a calculation.

In September, 2011 Mitt Romney Said He Would Keep The Bush Tax Cuts In Place. The Associated Press reported that “Romney said he would keep the Bush-era income tax cuts unchanged.” [AP, 9/6/11]

CBO: One-Third of The Bush Tax Cuts Went To People With the Top 1% of Income, Who Earn On Average $1.2 Million. “Fully one-third of President Bush’s tax cuts in the last three years have gone to people with the top 1 percent of income, who have earned an average of $1.2 million annually, according to a report by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office to be published Friday… The new estimates confirm what independent tax analysts have long said: that Mr. Bush’s tax cuts have been heavily skewed to the very wealthiest taxpayers.” [Washington Post, 8/13/04]

12. In what other countries did Romney pay taxes and claim a foreign tax credit?

Romney’s Tax Returns Showed Foreign Tax Credits And Investment In International Financial Instruments. According to Washington Post, “Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s newly released tax return shows sprawling international financial interests, from Bain Capital entities based in Luxembourg to a Goldman Sachs fund in Dublin. It discusses a foreign currency transaction and details foreign tax credits. But one of Romney’s biggest foreign investments is sheltered from U.S. taxation, partly because it is based in the Cayman Islands. […]Regulatory filings show that the partnership, related to Romney’s career at the corporate buyout firm Bain Capital, is registered in the Cayman Islands. The offshore arrangement could have spared Romney a form of U.S. tax that can apply even to individual retirement accounts, experts say.” [Washington Post, 01/24/12]

Romney Claimed A Foreign Tax Credit Of More Than $120,000. According to the National Journal, Romney claimed a foreign tax credit in 2010 of more than $120,000. [National Journal, 01/24/12]

UPDATED: For Tax Day 2012 (4/13/12)

3. Why did Romney’s trust claim to provide services to Bain Capital when the Romney campaign is now saying that the claim was a false statement? Does Mitt Romney think providing false information to the IRS is insignificant or was the original tax statement actually correct?

Romney’s Taxes Contained Seemingly Unnecessary Section 83(B) Elections In Connection With Romney’s Use Of The Carried Interest Tax Loophole. According to the New York Times, “Much of the Romneys’ income comes from carried interest, an unusual tax provision that allows employees and executives of private equity firms to pay low taxes. While those executives do not invest in the partnerships that buy and sell companies, they are compensated out of the partnership profits and allowed to treat the proceeds as capital gains, which are taxed at just 15 percent. That is the principal reason the Romney tax rate is so low. Mr. Romney was allowed to keep getting carried interest on new Bain partnerships for many years after he left the firm, and in 2010 he assigned the proceeds from a couple of partnerships to the Ann Romney trust. In the tax return for that trust, Mr. Malt signed letters electing to use Section 83(b) of the tax code in connection with Mr. Romney’s carried interest from two Bain partnerships. Such an election may or may not be legal, but it is certainly unnecessary. The section is normally used to let executives pay taxes on profits from restricted stock grants at capital gains rates. Since carried interest is already taxed at those rates, there would seem to be no reason to file that form.” [New York Times, 1/26/12]

Romney’s Trustee’s 83(B) Letter Indicated Carried Interest Was “Subject To Forfeiture If I Cease Performing Services For The Partnership,” But The Romney Campaign Backtracked Claiming The Statement Was A Falsehood.  According to the New York Times, “Moreover, to qualify for Section 83(b) treatment, the grant must involve restrictions. Mr. Malt’s letters stated that the carried interest “is subject to forfeiture if I cease performing services for the partnership.” Just who was that “I” is not clear. The trust performed no services, and neither did Mr. Malt. Nor do the Romneys claim to have done any work for the partnerships. Moreover, the Romney campaign says the interest is not subject to forfeiture. In other words, the letters are untrue. When asked, the campaign conceded as much, but said there was no harm in filing the false statements since the tax obligation was not affected. It appears that Mr. Malt signed some letters he took to be boilerplate without bothering to read or understand them.” [New York Times, 1/26/12]

The Ann D. Romney Blind Trust Listed A Partnership Interest In Bain Capital Partners (Am) X, Lp. Mitt Romney’s tax returns included a transfer notice of a Bain Capital Partners (AM)X LP to the Ann Romney trust. The value of the property at election was listed as $0. According to the document “The interest in the future appreciation of the Partnership’s business to which I am entitled pursuant to my partnership interest is subject to forfeiture if I cease performing services for the Partnership.” The document was signed by Romney trustee Bradford Malt. [Mitt Romney 2010 Tax Filing Pg. 131-132]

The Ann D. Romney Blind Trust Listed A Partnership Interest In Bain Capital Partners (Am) X, Llc. Mitt Romney’s tax returns included a transfer notice of a Bain Capital Partners (AM)X LP to the Ann Romney trust. The value of the property at election was listed as $0. According to the document “The interest in the future appreciation of the Partnership’s business to which I am entitled pursuant to my partnership interest is subject to forfeiture if I cease performing services for the Partnership”  The document was signed by Romney trustee Bradford Malt. [Mitt Romney 2010 Tax Filing Pg. 133-134]

4: Did Romney pay the Unrelated Business Income Tax (UBIT) tax on his multi-million dollar IRA? If not, do Romney’s earlier taxes shed light on using off-shore “blocker” corporations to avoid the UBIT tax on his multi-million dollar IRA?

Mitt Romney Obtained A Multi-Million Dollar Ira By Investing Retirement Funds In Bain Capital. According to Wall Street Journal, “Like many Americans, Mitt Romney has an individual retirement account. Unlike most Americans, Mr. Romney has between $20.7 million and $101.6 million in it, a big chunk of his fortune. Experts on estate planning said it is highly unusual to accumulate such a considerable sum in an IRA, an investment vehicle restricted by annual contribution limits. It appears that Mr. Romney’s grew so large mostly because it holds investments in Bain Capital, the private-equity firm he helped start.” [Wall Street Journal, 1/19/12]

Romney Would Likely Incur The UBIT Tax Because His IRA Invested In Private Equity Funds. According to The Wall Street Journal, “Under current tax law, anybody investing an IRA in a private-equity fund, as Mr. Romney did, would likely incur a hefty special tax on ‘unrelated business income,’ also known as UBIT. This tax, assessed at a maximum 35% rate, is meant to discourage tax-exempt entities such as an IRA, pension plan or endowment fund from unfairly competing with for-profit, taxpaying entities by operating a business without paying taxes on it. Investing in a partnership that uses debt to buy companies would trigger the tax, experts said.” [The Wall Street Journal,1/19/12]

It Isn’t Known Whether Romney Paid UBIT; Experts Say His Filings Suggest A Strategy Using Offshore Funds To Avoid The Tax. According to The Wall Street Journal, “It isn’t known whether Mr. Romney paid UBIT. His filings suggest use of a strategy involving offshore funds sometimes employed to avoid it, according to several experts. One method used by tax lawyers is to have the IRA invest through an offshore affiliate of the private-equity firm, known as an offshore blocker corporation, which in turn invests the same money in the private-equity partnership. The tax is avoided because the IRA technically is investing in the offshore corporation, not in a private-equity partnership. .” [The Wall Street Journal, 1/19/12]

The Use Of Offshore Blocker Corporations To Avoid UBIT Costs The Us Treasury Nearly $1 Billion Every Decade. According to The New York Times, “The issue revolves around ‘blocker corporations,’ set up in tax havens like the Caymans to help nonprofit giants avoid the unrelated business income tax, which was created to prevent nonprofits from straying into profit-making ventures that compete with taxpaying companies. Although not illegal, so-called UBIT blockers cost the United States Treasury nearly $1 billion a decade, according to Congress’s bipartisan Joint Committee on Taxation.” [The New York Times, 2/7/12]

Romney’s Campaign Has “Come Close” To Admitting That Romney’s IRA Uses Blocker Corporations, But Have Not Said It Directly. According to The New York Times, “The Romney campaign has not said whether the candidate’s I.R.A. investments are in a blocker entity, but they have come close. A campaign statement said Mr. Romney’s I.R.A. ‘uses investment structures just as those commonly used by charities and pension funds, including union pension funds, to maintain their tax-exempt or tax-deferred status.’” [The New York Times, 2/7/12]
Posted by at 1 comment:

Mitt Romney, a man of falsehoods


As My So So Brilliant son-in-law stated to me. "THEY ALL LIE, THAT'S ALL THEY KNOW HOW TO DO"

By , Published: April 16      

Among the attributes I most envy in a public man (or woman) is the ability to lie. If that ability is coupled with no sense of humor, you have the sort of man who can be a successful football coach, a CEO or, when you come right down to it, a presidential candidate. Such a man is Mitt Romney.

Time and time again, Romney has been called a liar during this campaign. (The various fact-checking organizations have had to work overtime on him alone.) A significant moment, sure to surface in the general election campaign, came during a debate held in New Hampshire in January. David Gregory, the host of “Meet the Press,” turned to Newt Gingrich and said, “You have agreed with the characterization that Governor Romney is a liar. Look at him now. Do you stand by that claim?”

Gingrich did not flinch. “Sure, governor,” he started off, and then accused Romney of running ads that were not true and, moreover, pretending he knew nothing about them. “It is your millionaire friends giving to the PAC. And you know some of the ads aren’t true. Just say that straightforward.”

Me, I would have confessed and begged for forgiveness. Not Romney, though — and herein is the reason he will be such a formidable general-election candidate. He concedes nothing. He had seen none of the ads, he said. They were done by others, he added. Of course, they are his supporters, but he had no control over them. All this time he was saying this rubbish, he seemed calm, sincere — matter of fact.

And then he brought up an ad he said he did see. It was about Gingrich’s heretical support for a climate-change bill. He dropped the name of the extremely evil Nancy Pelosi. He accused Gingrich of criticizing Paul Ryan’s first budget plan, an Ayn Randish document whose great virtue is a terrible honesty. (We are indeed going broke.) He added that Gingrich had been in ethics trouble in the House and ended with a promise to make sure his ads were as truthful as could be. Pow! Pow! Pow! Gingrich was on the canvas.

I watched, impressed. I admire a smooth liar, and Romney is among the best. His technique is to explain — that bit about not knowing what was in the ads — and then counterattack. He maintains the bulletproof demeanor of a man who is barely suffering fools, in this case Gingrich. His message is not so much what he says, but what he is: You cannot touch me. I have the organization and the money. Especially the money. (Even the hair.) You’re a loser.
 
There are those who maintain that President Obama, too, is a liar. The president’s recent attack on Ryan’s new budget proposal sent countless critics scurrying to their thesauruses for ways to say lie — “comprehensively misrepresenting” is the way George F. Will put it. (He also said Obama “is not nearly as well educated as many thought.”) Obama does indeed sometimes play politics with the truth, as when he declared that a Supreme Court reversal of his health care law would be unprecedented. He then backed down. Not what he meant, he said.

But where Romney is different is that he is not honest about himself. He could, as he did just recently, stand before the National Rifle Association as if he were, in spirit as well as membership, one of them. In body language, in the blinking of the eyes, in the nonexistent pounding pulse, there was not the tiniest suggestion that here was a man who just as confidently once embodied the anti-gun ethic of Massachusetts, the distant land he once governed. Instead, he tore into Obama for the (nonexistent) threat the president posed to Second Amendment rights — a false accusation from a false champion.

A marathon of debates and an eon of campaigning have toughened and honed Romney. He commands the heights of great assurance, and he knows, as some of us learn too late in life, that the truth is not always a moral obligation but sometimes merely what works. He often cites his business background as commending him for the presidency. That’s his forgivable absurdity. Instead, what his career has given him is the businessman’s concept of self — that what he does is not who he is. This is what enables the slumlord to be a charitable man. This is what enables the corporate raider to endow his university.

Business is business. It’s what you do. It is not who you are. Lying isn’t a sin. It’s a business plan.

Posted by at No comments:

Presidential Polls

Tuesday, April 17, 2012

Monday, April 16, 2012

Sunday, April 15, 2012

Thursday, April 12, 2012

Posted by at No comments:

Time for My Animal Video's



















Posted by at No comments:

Senate rejects 'Buffett rule'




Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., joins MSNBC's Martin Bashir to defend the Buffett Rule and explain why the demand for higher-income people to pay higher taxes isn't going away any time soon.

By Tom Curry, msnbc.com National Affairs Writer

Updated at 7:06 pm ET On the eve of the federal tax filing deadline, the Senate blocked consideration of a Democratic bill to ensure that taxpayers making over $1 million a year pay more in federal taxes.
The vote, mostly on party lines, was 51 to 45, short of the 60 votes needed to advance the bill.
The bill, sponsored by Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., is a version of a proposal made last year by investor Warren Buffett.
President Barack Obama had been rallying support for the “Buffett Rule” for the past several months and especially in the past week.
The tax proposal, Obama said on Sunday, is “not an argument about redistribution” of wealth. Instead, he said, "we're making an argument about how do we grow the economy so that it's going to prosper in this competitive 21st century environment," he said. "The only way we're going to do that is if people like me, who have been incredibly blessed, are willing to give a little bit back so that the next generation coming along can succeed as well.”
Democrats have tried to use the alleged unfairness of the tax code as a campaign weapon against GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney, who paid federal income tax of $3.2 million on income of nearly $21 million in 2011, for an effective tax rate of 15 percent. Much of Romney’s income came from capital gains on his investments. Capital gains are taxed at 15 percent, while the top marginal tax rate on earned income is 35 percent.
Carolyn Kaster / AP
President Barack Obama has been rallying support for the "Buffett Rule" for the past several months and especially in the past week.





















In Monday’s vote, Whitehouse and other proponents of the higher tax rate had been expected to fall short of the 60 votes they need on the motion to move ahead on the tax proposal.
But the vote will put senators on record and create a campaign benchmark that they or their opponents can use.

In a speech to donors at a closed door fundraiser in Palm Beach, Florida, Mitt Romney laid out plans to consolidate federal agencies, reform the tax code and win back Latino voters. The Daily Rundown's Chuck Todd reports.

Among the senators up for re-election in November whose votes strategists were watching:
  • Republican Scott Brown of Massachusetts
  • Democrat Jon Tester of Montana
  • Republican Dean Heller of Nevada
  • Democrat Bill Nelson of Florida
The Senate vote on Monday is only a prelude to a contentious debate at year’s end over what to do about the current income tax provisions which expire on Dec. 31.
According to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, in 2011 taxpayers in the top one percent of the income distribution paid, on average, 24 percent of their income in federal incomes taxes. Taxpayers in the middle quintile of the income distribution paid, on average, 4.1 percent of their adjusted gross income in federal income taxes.
Whitehouse said on the Senate floor Monday that his bill would “restore some fairness to our tax system” and counteract what he called the “glaring tax inequity” of taxpayers such as Buffett, most of whose income comes from investments, paying a lower effective tax rate than people who earn most or all of their income from wages or salaries.
A critic of the bill, Sen. Rob Portman, R- Ohio, told the Senate that the Whitehouse bill was “bad economics, bad fiscal policy, and... a distraction from the broader bipartisan effort underway to achieve fundamental tax reform that is necessary to unleash a true economic recovery.”
The new tax would be phased in for taxpayers with incomes between $1 million and $2 million. The Whitehouse bill would not change the existing alternative minimum tax, which serves as kind of back-up system to ensure that higher-income people with lots of tax deductions end up paying higher taxes.
The bill would raise $46.7 billion over the next ten years, according to the nonpartisan staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation, so it would in itself do little to reduce the long-term mismatch between revenues and spending.
Cumulative budget deficits over the next ten years will be about $10.7 trillion, if current income tax rates remain in effect, according to the Congressional Budget Office’s estimate. If current tax rates expire at the end of this year and revert to the higher rates that were in effect prior to 2001, then cumulative deficits over the next ten years will be about $2.8 trillion.
At a Tax Policy Center panel discussion Friday, former CBO director Douglas Holtz-Eakin, who served as an economic advisor to 2008 presidential candidate John McCain, called the Buffett proposal “an empty policy. It doesn’t create a single job or help growth. It’s less than a tenth of a penny of every dollar of the current deficit. And it adds another layer of tax administration on top of the regular tax, the alternative minimum tax, and thus goes in the wrong direction from the point of view of real tax reform.”
Also at that panel discussion, David Levine, the former chief economist for investment firm Sanford C. Bernstein & Co. and a supporter of Responsible Wealth, a group of millionaires who believe high-income Americans should pay higher taxes, said instead of the Buffet rule, he’d prefer reverting to the 39.6 percent top income rates as it was in 2001 and adding a series of higher marginal income tax rates for people with incomes over $1 million, over $5 million, and over $25 million.
Posted by at 1 comment:

It's a matter of 'choice'

By Steve Benen

 - 
Mon Apr 16, 2012 10:04 AM EDT
There was a curious exchange on "Meet the Press" yesterday, with Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) arguing, with a straight face, that she and her party want American women to be able to "make their own choices for the future of their own bodies." No, seriously, that's what she said.
For those who can't watch clips online, the right-wing Minnesotan argued with a straight face:
"What we want is women to be able to make their own choices.... You see, that's the lie that happens under Obamacare. The president of the United States effectively becomes a health care dictator. Women don't need anyone to tell them what to do on health care. We want women to have their own choices, their own money. That way they can make their own choices for their future on their own bodies."
To be sure, I don't generally expect much in the way of coherence from Bachmann. She proudly embraces bizarre conspiracy theories; she routinely says ridiculous things on national television; she pretends to grasp public policies she doesn't understand; and her worldview is detached from reality. Even as the Republican Party leaps off a right-wing cliff, Bachmann stands out for her unique brand of madness. Her reference to a presidential "health care dictator" helps underscore the point.
But even if we put all of that aside, it's just odd to hear far-right Republicans who oppose women's reproductive rights speak passionately about far-right Republicans wanting women to "make their own choices" about "their own bodies."
Has Bachmann heard about her party's push to restrict contraception access? How about getting rid of Planned Parenthood? Or maybe the state-mandated, medically-unnecessary transvaginal ultrasounds? Perhaps measures to force women to tell their employers why they want birth control have crossed the congresswoman's radar screen?
"What we want is women to be able to make their own choices." Bachmann keeps saying this, but I don't think it means what she thinks it means.
Posted by at No comments:

First Thoughts: Romney's own hot-mic moment

6


Romney’s own hot-mic moment… At Florida fundraiser (overheard by NBC’s Garrett Haake), Romney singles out HUD for possible elimination and says he wants to cut the Education Dept… He and his wife also were giddy about the Hilary Rosen flap… And Romney revealed he wants a “Republican DREAM Act” to help woo Latinos… Senate to vote on Buffett Rule at 5:30 pm ET… Team Obama rakes in $53 million in March… Anonymous donor writes Crossroads $10 million check… NYT on White House’s access to big donors… Romney, meanwhile, promises his own donors access at “Presidential Inaugural Retreat!!!
By NBC's Chuck Todd, Mark Murray, Domenico Montanaro, and Brooke Brower
*** Romney’s own hot-mic moment: In an interview with the Weekly Standard earlier this year, Mitt Romney said he learned this advice from his unsuccessful 1994 Senate race against Ted Kennedy: don’t get too specific. “One of the things I found in a short campaign against Ted Kennedy was that when I said, for instance, that I wanted to eliminate the Department of Education, that was used to suggest I don’t care about education,” he said. “So I think it’s important for me to point out that I anticipate that there will be departments and agencies that will either be eliminated or combined with other agencies.” But at a Florida fundraiser Romney attended last night -- which NBC’s Garrett Haake overheard because he was sitting on a seawall outside the home -- the former Massachusetts governor got MUCH MORE specific. Indeed, it was in a way Romney’s own hot-mic moment, where he was more open about his plans than he’s been to voters and reporters to date.


In a speech to donors at a closed door fundraiser in Palm Beach, Florida, Mitt Romney laid out plans to consolidate federal agencies, reform the tax code and win back Latino voters. The Daily Rundown's Chuck Todd reports.

*** Eliminate HUD, cut Education Department: He singled out HUD for possible elimination. "I'm going to take a lot of departments in Washington, and agencies, and combine them. Some eliminate, but I'm probably not going to lay out just exactly which ones are going to go," Romney said. "Things like Housing and Urban Development, which my dad was head of, that might not be around later.” He said he’d cut the Education Department, though not eliminate it entirely, referring again to that 1994 Senate defeat. "The Department of Education: I will either consolidate with another agency, or perhaps make it a heck of a lot smaller. I'm not going to get rid of it entirely." Romney also identified specific loopholes and deductions that he’s eliminate to finance his across-the-board tax cut. "I'm going to probably eliminate for high income people the second home mortgage deduction," Romney said, per Haake, adding that he would also likely eliminate deductions for state income and property taxes as well.

*** Giddy over the Rosen flap: At the fundraiser, Haake adds, both Romney and his wife Ann remained absolutely giddy about last week’s Hilary Rosen flap. "It was my early birthday present for someone to be critical of me as a mother, and that was really a defining moment, and I loved it," Ann Romney said. The candidate went further, calling the episode a "gift" that allowed his campaign to show contrast with Democrats in the general election's first week. But while Romney said last week that “all moms are working moms,” that doesn’t apply to mothers who are welfare recipients, the Boston Globe says. Romney said at a Jan. 4 campaign stop in Manchester, N.H.: “Even if you have a child two years of age, you need to go to work,” Romney describing his position as Massachusetts governor. “And people said, ‘Well that’s heartless,’ and I said ‘No, no, I’m willing to spend more giving daycare to allow those parents to go back to work. It’ll cost the state more providing that daycare, but I want the individuals to have the dignity of work.’”

video platform video management video solutions video player

*** Romney wants a “Republican DREAM Act”: Here’s a final bit of news from last night’s Romney’s fundraiser: He said the GOP must offer its own policies to woo Hispanics, including a "Republican DREAM Act," to give Hispanic voters a real choice between the two political parties. So Romney here is admitting the obvious: He and his party have A LOT of work to do with Latinos. Why? Consider this: Obama can get to 270 electoral votes (275 to be specific) by winning the following battleground states: Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Virginia. Under the scenario of this Hispanic path (CO, NM, NV, and VA), Obama doesn’t need to win Florida, Ohio, Iowa, or New Hampshire. That’s right -- this is a viable path to 270 that does not include EITHER Florida or Ohio. It’s pretty stunning.

*** Senate to vote on Buffett Rule: Congress is back from its Easter/Passover break, and the Senate today votes -- at 5:30 pm ET, per NBC’s Libby Leist -- on the so-called Buffett Rule, under which millionaires would have to pay an effective tax rate of at least 30%. We’ve talked plenty about the presidential politics of the Buffett Rule, but here’s something additional to consider: How do the individual senators vote? We’re looking at five running for re-election/election in November:
Jon Tester (D-MT),  Yea
Claire McCaskill (D-MO),  Yea
Scott Brown (R-MA),  Yea
Dean Heller (R-NV),  Nay
and Bill Nelson (D-FL). Yea

The vote, mostly on party lines, was 51 to 45, short of the 60 votes needed to advance the bill.


*** Team Obama rakes in $53 million-plus in March: In a video, the Obama campaign announced this morning that it raised more than $53 million in March -- the campaign, DNC, and other committees. It added that 567,000 contributed to the campaign last month, and the average donation was $51. We won't know until April 20 -- the filing deadline for March -- how much of that $53 million was from the campaign, DNC, etc. But for February, the campaign announced raising $45 million, and the split was $21.3 million for the campaign and $24 million for the other committees. To put these new Obama numbers into perspective, for March of 2004, the Bush-Cheney campaign raised $26.2 million, and the RNC brought in $18.8 million. That's a total of $45 million. To date now, the Obama campaign and DNC have raked in nearly $370 million this campaign cycle.

*** An anonymous $10 million check: But that campaign money is only part of the story. On Friday, the Washington Post reported that an anonymous donor gave the Karl Rove-backed Crossroad GPS a $10 million contribution late last year. Unlike American Crossroads, which is a Super PAC and which has to disclose its donors, Crossroads GPS is a 501c4 and doesn’t have to reveal the identity of its donors. So with one check, an anonymous donor gave this conservative outside group about half ($10 million) of what the Obama campaign raised in February ($21.3 million).

*** White House access for big donors: There are a couple of other fundraising stories. First, the Sunday New York Times reported on the White House access that big Obama donors have received. “[T]he review showed that those who donated the most to Mr. Obama and the Democratic Party since he started running for president were far more likely to visit the White House than others. Among donors who gave $30,000 or less, about 20 percent visited the White House, according to a New York Times analysis that matched names in the visitor logs with donor records. But among those who donated $100,000 or more, the figure rises to about 75 percent.” It’s worth noting that for all the reforms Team Obama has instituted – not taking lobbyist money, making the White House visitor logs open to the public, efforts to rein in the lobbyist revolving door – it’s received very little political gain. In fact, you could argue that it’s created more pain… (The fact is most Democratic lobbyists and big donors don’t believe they get any special treatment from this White House, and they complain loudly about this. As the re-election has geared up, Team Obama has tried to make these folks feel better, only to have their efforts get correctly flagged for coming across hypocritical.)

*** Romney camp promises donor access at “Presidential Inaugural Retreat”: The Romney campaign pounced on yesterday’s New York Times story. “Less than four years after promising to drive special interests out of Washington, President Obama has done the exact opposite—granting top donors special favors and access to his White House,” said spokeswoman Andrea Saul. “This is just another example of President Obama’s failed record, which he’ll be desperate to hide from voters this November.” But get this: Buzzfeed reports that Romney “is already offering top donors access to a special ‘Presidential Inaugural retreat,’ planned on the assumption that he will be elected president this November. The offer, in a fundraising email circulated by a top Georgia supporter to fellow Republicans and obtained by BuzzFeed, is one of several goodies offered to those who contribute more than $50,000 to the joint fundraising committee known as ‘Romney Victory.’ Those donors will be named ‘Founding Members’ of Romney Victory and invited to a California retreat with Romney and offered ‘yet to be determined access at the Republican National Convention in Tampa in August.’”

*** On the GOP trail: Romney attends a Red Sox game at 11:00 am ET and also gives an interview to ABC. Later in the day, Romney heads to Philadelphia, where he speaks to a Tea Party group… Also, Gingrich attends a fundraiser in Texas.

Countdown to the CT, DE, NY, PA, and RI primaries: 8 days

Countdown to Election Day: 204 days
Posted by at 1 comment:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)