Misconception: Since Mitt Romney held investments in offshore funds, he must have been trying to hide money from the IRS.

Reality: There is nothing illegal about investing or holding money in banks that are located in other countries. If he was trying to hide money, why would he disclose it to the IRS?

Misconception: Mitt Romney’s effective tax rate was only 14%. This goes to show that the richest American’s who run the biggest companies continue to pay the lowest tax rate.

Reality: While Romney’s effective tax rate of 14% is low, people need to remember that he didn’t earn this off of wages. His income in 2010 was mainly from capital gains through his various investments. However, in the interest of discussion, even if his effective tax rate was 14%, and wage based, there is still an angry, greedy, vile, and capitalistic group of Americans paying a lower tax rate.

Is it big oil? No. Big Tobacco? No.

Those greedy jerks that pay less in taxes than Mitt Romney… small business owners, specifically sole proprietors. That’s right, according to the United States Small Business Administration (SBA), the average effective tax rate for a sole proprietor is 13.3%:

The effective federal income tax rate faced by small businesses varies by the legal form of organization, according to a report issued today by the Office of Advocacy of the U.S. Small Business Administration. Average rates range from 13.3 percent for sole proprietorships to 26.9 percent for S corporations. The effective federal income tax rate is the actual amount of taxes paid by a firm as a percent of its net income.

If you’re thinking to yourself, “well, business owners are still a small segment of the population… the majority have to pay a much higher tax rate,” you’re wrong. Even at 14%, Romney still pays a higher rate than 97% of Americans.

From the Tax Foundation:

“Based on the most recent IRS data for 2009, the average tax rate (after deductions) paid by all Americans is 11 percent. It is also clear that millionaires pay an average of 25 percent, while virtually every taxpayer earning under $100,000 pays an average rate of no more than 8 percent of their income in taxes.”

If anything, it’s the “1%” that should be angry at Romney, not the average voter.

Jobs:

As Republicans our first concern is for those waiting tonight to begin or resume the climb up life’s ladder. We do not accept that ours will ever be a nation of haves and have nots; we must always be a nation of haves and soon to haves.

Energy and Jobs:

The extremism that stifles the development of homegrown energy, or cancels a perfectly safe pipeline that would employ tens of thousands, or jacks up consumer utility bills for no improvement in either human health or world temperature, is a pro-poverty policy. It must be replaced by a passionate pro-growth approach that breaks all ties and calls all close ones in favor of private sector jobs that restore opportunity for all and generate the public revenues to pay our bills.

Tax Reform:

That means a dramatically simpler tax system of fewer loopholes and lower rates. A pause in the mindless piling on of expensive new regulations that devour dollars that otherwise could be used to hire somebody. It means maximizing on the new domestic energy technologies that are the best break our economy has gotten in years.

Congressional Gridlock:

It’s not fair and it’s not true for the President to attack Republicans in Congress as obstacles on these questions. They and they alone have passed bills to reduce borrowing, reform entitlements, and encourage new job creation, only to be shot down nearly time and again by the President and his Democrat Senate allies.

General Change in Direction:

No feature of the Obama Presidency has been sadder than its constant efforts to divide us, to curry favor with some Americans by castigating others. As in previous moments of national danger, we Americans are all in the same boat. If we drift, quarreling and paralyzed, over a Niagara of debt, we will all suffer, regardless of income, race, gender, or other category. If we fail to shift to a pro-jobs, pro-growth economic policy, there will never be enough public revenue to pay for our safety net, national security, or whatever size government we decide to have.

Rally Call:

2012 must be the year we prove the doubters wrong. The year we strike out boldly not merely to avert national bankruptcy but to say to a new generation that America is still the world’s premier land of opportunity. Republicans will speak for those who believe in the dignity and capacity of the individual citizen; who believe that government is meant to serve the people rather than supervise them; who trust Americans enough to tell them the plain truth about the fix we are in, and to lay before them a specific, credible program of change big enough to meet the emergency we are facing.

Source: House Speaker, John Boehner

Let’s just hope we  don’t have another Bobby Jindal moment. Mitch Daniels has the potential to go on to bigger things in politics, and I would hate to see it ruined by a bad speech delivery.

While Gallup notes:

U.S. presidents rarely see a spike in public support after their delivery of State of the Union addresses. Since 1978, Gallup has measured only four instances when a president’s approval rating increased by at least four percentage points after a State of the Union address, with Bill Clinton the president in three of these instances and George W. Bush in the other.

While that’s true, I couldn’t help but notice that in 1995 (after the Republican Revolution in 1994), with a pre-speech approval rating 47%, President Bill Clinton saw a post-speech bump of 2%.

The question is, however, was Obama’s speech better than Clinton’s? I’m not so sure, but it’ll be interesting to see later this week how the American people responded.

What do you think? Share your comments below.

Graphic: Approval Ratings Pre- and Post-State of the Union, Presidents from Jimmy Carter to George W. Bush

Links:

Politico: Tea Partiers rally: ‘Kill the bill’

Dakota Voice: Code Red Rally Today Against Gov’t Health Care

The Washington Independent: Nervous About Health Care, Tea Parties Look to 2010

Christian News Wire: Concerned Women for America Joins ‘Code Red’ Rally on Capitol Hill

Courthouse News Service: Right Wingers Dress in Red to Protest Bill

CNN Political Ticker: Dean: Time to ‘kill the Senate bill’

CBS News: Conservatives Rally to “Kill the Bill”

CNN Political Ticker: Conservative ‘Code Red rally’ hits the Hill

The Hill: Tea Party supporters, conservative groups rally outside Capitol

Video Coverage:

Click here to view the embedded video.

Click here to view the embedded video.

Photo Coverage:

Congressman Kingston Speaks at Code Red Rally

Congressman Jack Kingston (R-GA) looks on as Mr. William Temple of Brunswick, GA is interviewed by a correspondent from National Public Radio in Washington.

Code Red Protest in DC

Code Red Protest in DC

Code Red Protest in DC

Conservatives rallied in Washington Tuesday to show their opposition to Democrats' plans for health care reform. (Photo Credit: Getty Images)

(AP Photo/Lauren Victoria Burke)

Connecticut resident Tom Hill poses with a homemade sign. The other side featured a health care message for Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.). (Photo by David Weigel)

“You may have heard the UPS is in quite the political fight with FEDEX. Though both are package-delivery companies, they’re governed by totally different federal labor rules. As a result, UPS’s workforce is much more heavily unionized than FEDEX’s—and more than twice as expensive.

So now UPS is trying to get FEDEX reclassified under federal law as a way of screwing a competitor. That’s horrendous, but it also makes a sick kind of business sense. And it also reveals the real villain: A government that is big enough to absolutely, positively guarantee it can screw any business. Overnight.

“UPS Vs. FEDEX” was produced by Meredith Bragg and Nick Gillespie (who also hosts). Approximately two minutes long.

This video is based on “Using Unions as Weapons,” by Mercatus Center economist Veronique de Rugy, which appeared in the October 2009 print edition of Reason. Read that article at http://reason.com/archives/2009/09/28…

For downloadable version of this and all other Reason.tv videos go to http://reason.tv“

Click here to view the embedded video.

Click here to view the embedded video.

Remarks of President Barack Obama
Weekly Address
November 14, 2009

This was a week for honoring the extraordinary service and profound sacrifice of our men and women in uniform.

Every fall, we set aside a special day to pay tribute to our veterans. But this year, Veteran’s Day took on even greater poignancy and meaning because of the tragic events at Fort Hood.

On Tuesday, I traveled there to join with the Fort Hood community, the Army, and the friends and families of the victims to honor thirteen of our fellow Americans who died – and the dozens more who were wounded – not on some distant shore, but on a military base at home.

Every man and woman who signs up for military service does so with full knowledge of the dangers that could come – that is part of what makes the service of our troops and veterans so extraordinary. But it’s unthinkable that so many would die in a hail of gunfire on a US Army base in the heart of Texas, and that a fellow service-member could have pulled trigger.

There is an ongoing investigation into this terrible tragedy. That investigation will look at the motives of the alleged gunman, including his views and contacts.  As I said in Fort Hood, I am confident that justice will be done, and I will insist that the full story be told. That is paramount, and I won’t compromise that investigation today by discussing the details of this case. But given the potential warning signs that may have been known prior these shootings, we must uncover what steps – if any – could have been taken to avert this tragedy.

On the Thursday evening that this tragedy took place, I met in the Oval Office with Secretary of Defense Gates, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff – Admiral Mullen, and FBI Director Mueller to review the immediate steps that were necessary to support the families and secure Fort Hood. The next morning, I met with the leadership of our military and the intelligence community, and ordered them to undertake a full review of the sequence of events that led up to the shootings.

The purpose of this review is clear: We must compile every piece of information that was known about the gunman, and we must learn what was done with that information. Once we have those facts, we must act upon them. If there was a failure to take appropriate action before the shootings, there must be accountability. Beyond that – and most importantly – we must quickly and thoroughly evaluate and address any flaws in the system, so that we can prevent a similar breach from happening again. Our government must be able to act swiftly and surely when it has threatening information. And our troops must have the security that they deserve.

I know there will also be inquiries by Congress, and there should.  But all of us should resist the temptation to turn this tragic event into the political theater that sometimes dominates the discussion here in Washington. The stakes are far too high.

Of all the responsibilities of the presidency, the one that I weigh most heavily is my duty as Commander-in-Chief to our splendid service-men and women. Their character and bravery were on full display in that processing center at Fort Hood, when so many scrambled under fire to help their wounded comrades. And their great dignity and decency has been on display in the days since, as the Fort Hood community has rallied together.

We owe our troops prayerful, considered decisions about when and where we commit them to battle to protect our security and freedom, and we must fully support them when they are deployed. We also owe them the absolute assurance that they’ll be safe here at home as they prepare for whatever mission may come. As Commander-in-Chief, I won’t settle for anything less.

This nation will never forget the service of those we lost at Fort Hood, just as we will always honor the service of all who wear the uniform of the United States of America. Their legacy will be an America that is safer and stronger – an America that reflects the extraordinary character of the men and women who serve it.

Thank you.

It’s good to hear about something other than health care, but I’m sure that’s what will be covered next week, as it looks like Congress isn’t going to meet his deadline.

A few points:

First, let’s remember that AIG never actually went into bankruptcy proceedings, instead allowing the United States government to become a majority shareholder in the company, taking ownership of 79.9% of their assets.

Look at this from the role of shareholder: would you want to have the company you’re invested in revoke contracts that were designed to keep your talent on board, during an especially difficult time? If you were in fact a shareholder, and saw that it had the potential to yield a return with the right people and incentive, I would hope you’d say yes.

The government claimed when they made this investment that they thought it was going to have a positive return on investment for the American people. How do they expect that to be the case when the people working at the company are having one of their biggest perks stripped from them?

Second, staying on the same topic, it’s important to remember that bankruptcy is one of the legal protections a business has to get themselves out of the potentially crippling contracts without having to go through a sea of red tape and individual legal proceedings.

Just as is the case with any company, AIG had the option to file bankruptcy, go into protection and remove these contracts. However, the United States felt that AIG was too big to fail, and decided that instead of letting them go bankrupt, they would give them the money they needed to continue doing what they thought was needed to become solid again.

Third, do people actually believe that AIG would be able to employ quality people without having the ability to give them something to sweeten things a bit? If you’re someone who actually understands the credit market and has the knowledge that could save AIG, odds are if you’re not receiving the right sort of benefits package, you’ll just going to go elsewhere (especially in this economy).

Those who orchestrated this deal both in New York and Washington have all worked for institutions like AIG at some point. I am quite confident that if they weren’t receiving bonuses when they were with those companies, they too would have gone elsewhere.

While the media has had a field day with this, I find it extremely troubling that the government is coming down so aggressively on AIG for a practice that involves bonuses that are renewed annually, yet is unwilling to speak out negatively against union contracts held by the auto industry that often yield more benefits, FOR LIFE, and yield no positive return for the company.

The government is creating a slippery slope here by now threatening to come in and take this bonus money back, particularly when they’re talking about tracking down the individuals who received the money.

The government has no place telling companies that they cant honor contracts that were established prior to their investment. If they want to do this, they’re going to have to write a new slate of contract law, or use their majority power to drive the company into bankruptcy. However, when you’re the United States government, odds are regard for the law is the last thing you’re paying attention to. Public opinion and approval rating, however, is another story.

This is going to get worse, I promise.

If you thought Sarbanes/Oxley was a business killer, wait until you see what extreme regulation they’re going to come up with to try and prevent the unknown in the future.

In this commercial, Dominos Pizza has used the bailouts and stimulus package to their advantage by poking fun at the process, and selling pizza at the same time.

This is definitely smart advertising.

Despite earlier reports buzzing around the Hill that Senate Democrats may not have the 60 votes needed to prevent a GOP filibuster of the $410 billion spending omnibus, TheHill.com is now reporting that the Democrat leadership is now confident that they will have the votes necessary to make this happen.

Last November, the only thing the Democrats failed to do was capture the 60 Senate seats needed to prevent a filibuster. This means that if they are going to get anything done, it’s going to have to be with the help of some Republicans willing to cross sides. The Democrat’s most likely help will come from Republican Senators who are looking to gain some much-needed political capital – like in Maine and Pennsylvania for example, two blue/purple states with “vulnerable” Republican Senators. I think that they should be more worried about retaliation from their own party than those voters on the left who didn’t vote for them in the first place.

During the recent stimulus fight, there were three Senators who decided to play the role of a modern day Judas’: Senators Collins and Snowe, both of Maine, and Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania. They’ve definitely played it well.

Yes my friends, it appears that the party of Reagan is slowly assimilating into the party of pansies, where those elected to serve on what has become a reality show, now better known as “House… and Senate” spend their days in the dark bowels of the various House and Senate buildings, meeting with key staffers and politicos not discussing policy, but figuring out what tradeoffs will get them reelected.

While Snowe and Collins haven’t been mentioned, I wouldn’t be surprised if they join arms with Senator Specter again, who is believed to be a key player for crossing over, all with the end result of propping themselves up, while dragging the Republican brand and Party into the ground.

The article also goes on to say that Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa (the guy who the Republican Party should exile for his sneaky online sales reporting provision), and Senator Kit Bond of Missouri could also become the latest round of Senators to go native. Are they the Brutus’ of the GOP?

Why aren’t we stopping them?

If I were Michael Steele, my message to the Republicans in both the House and Senate would be simple: “grow a damn pair or I’ll make sure your sorry asses don’t get re-elected.”

We’ll see what happens… and I hope to have more updates tomorrow.

As a tech-geek, I’ll avoid going into total analytical nerd mode, however the very fact that National Journal was compelled to write an article titled “E-Mail Surge Forces Hill IT to Keep Up” is a testament to the hard work of activists across the country.

From the article:

“There were delays on inbound Internet traffic yesterday but, given the fact that we receive on average more than 1 million e-mails per day, our system is extremely reliable and interruptions/slowdowns are rare. The volume is constantly increasing and we continually review technology upgrades to deal with it,” Kyle Anderson said in a statement.

One million emails per day, that’s a force to be reckoned with.

What I find even more uplifting about that number is that Anderson says it’s continually on the rise, which leads me to believe that a big portion of this activity can be attributed to the long awaited coming of age (in a technological sense) of the conservative movement.

Now with conservatives having a powerful presence on sites like Facebook, Twitter, Ning, and various other social networking sites, it’s extremely easy to relay information that drives action.

What’s even more uplifting about all of this is that it’s not just Hill-targeted email traffic that is on the rise, it’s also overall web-traffic.

Check out this graph showing the monthly traffic numbers of the United States House of Representatives and the United States Senate:

As the graph shows, December saw a decline in traffic, which is to be expected after a heated election with a lame-duck President.

However, what I find more remarkable is how quickly the level of traffic has picked up on the Hill. It’s often the case that after heated elections political apathy on both sides is a symptom that plagues even the most active politicos.

It looks like things are different now.

If political apathy can be avoided month-after-month between now and November 2010, I don’t see any reason why the Republicans in both the House and Senate wouldn’t gain (or at least keep) most of the contested seats.