Santorum and Romney Square Off On Felon Disenfranchisement

Rick Santorum asked Mitt Romney point blank: “Do you believe people who were felons, who served their time, who exhausted their parole and probation, should be given the right to vote?”  This was in response to an ad by Romney’s “Super-PAC” attacking the former Pennsylvania senator.

The ad says Mr. Santorum voted to “let convicted felons vote” — something the senator says is “explicitly false” because it implies, though it never says, that he wanted felons to be able to vote from jail. The vote Mr. Santorum cast, Senate vote No. 31 in 2002, would have overridden state laws when it comes to federal elections. It would have required them to let felons register to vote once they have completed their prison sentences and any probation or parole.

Romney, at first, beat around the bush.  “I don’t believe people who have committee violent crimes should be given their right to vote.”

Santorum retorted that, while Romney was governor of Massachusetts, the law allowed people on probation and parole (including those who committed violent crimes) could in fact vote.  And Romney did nothing to fight it.

In fact, until 2000, prisoners in Massachusetts could vote– just as they currently can in Maine and Vermont.

The problem here is about creating and underclass in America, a caste of Americans with no stake in the democracy.  A group, millions strong, who are told to pay taxes, abide by the laws, yet have no representation.  How can  a democracy survive with parents barred from the ballot box?  How can such a large group, with further discrimination in employment and housing, be expected to abide by the law?  Most of them will, and most do, but this is a credit to people’s basic human instinct to live in peace and harmony.  It is not due to political leadership.

Was the Commonwealth of Massachusetts somehow saved when prisoners were barred from participation?  Was the state of Rhode Island somehow dismantled when people on probation and parole were granted their voting rights in 2006?  I was part of the latter ballot campaign, going so far as drafting the final constitutional amendment… just one year removed from prison, for a violent crime.  It is ironic that I move to Louisiana for law school and legally lose my right to vote.  It should come as no surprise that I felt much more connected to the democracy, to my responsibilities as a citizen, in the state where I could vote.

Republican Presidential Candidates’ Tax Policy Would Destroy the Economy (Even More)

There’s nothing quite like a political campaign to demonstrate just how extreme the national Republican Party and its primary voters are. The Center for Tax Justice has an analysis of the GOP Presidential Candidates’ Tax Plans which shows just how much they favor the wealthiest 1% of Americans. Some high(low)lights:

  • Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich’s $18.1 trillion tax plan would give the richest one percent of Americans an average tax cut of $391,330.
  • Texas Governor Rick Perry’s $10.5 trillion tax plan would give the richest one percent of Americans an average tax cut of $272,730.
  • Former Senator Rick Santorum’s $9.4 trillion tax plan would give the richest one percent of Americans an average tax cut of $217,500.
  • Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney’s $6.6 trillion tax plan would give the richest one percent of Americans an average tax cut of $126,450.

To put these numbers into better perspective, let’s compare them to the 2010 median wgae of $26,363, as reported by the Social Security Administration (note: median wage means that 50% of workers earned less and 50% or workers earned more. This is a much better calculation to use since “average” income skews higher because of the outrageous sums of wealth that some people generate).

  • Under Newt Gingrich’s plan, the median worker would need to work almost 15 years to earn as much as the average tax cut received by the richest 1%.
  • Under Rick Perry’s plan, the median worker would need to work about 10 years and 4 months to earn as much as the average tax cut received by the richest 1%.
  • Under Rick Santorum’s plan, the median worker would need to work about 8 years and 3 months to earn as much as the average tax cut received by the richest 1%.
  • Under Rick Perry’s plan, the median worker would need to work about 4 years and 8 months to earn as much as the average tax cut received by the richest 1%.

And these calculations don’t include the millions of people who are either “officially” unemployed, or have stopped looking for work, just those that are fortunate enough to find jobs. Why these proposals are even being seriously considered is beyond me.

It’s important to remember that not all taxes (or tax cuts) are equal. For instance, a payroll tax is more regressive than an income tax, a sales tax is more regressive than a payroll tax, and a capital gains tax is the most progressive of all since the wealthy benefit the most from capital gains (hence why capital gains taxes were sharply cut under George W. Bush). It’s also important to remember that the US tax burden is at its lowest level since 1958 and also federal income taxes are at historically low levels. The LAST thing this country needs right now are additional transfers of wealth to the already rich.

Each of the GOP candidates’ tax plans would further starve the federal government of much needed revenue, increase borrowing to provide for all the important things the federal government does for us, further increase the national debt and the interest we pay on that debt, and exacerbate the growth of income inequality, albeit in varying degrees. What they wouldn’t do is deal with the real economic problem facing the country: not enough money is going into the hands of people who will spend it.

Since the 1970s, U.S. wages have largely remained stagnant. At the same time, the vast majority of all the wealth created in the country over the last 30 years has been flowing upward.

Because the super wealthy don’t actually work to generate their income, wages as a share of national income has been declining for just as long. What that means is less and less money is being earned by workers, and that’s bad for the economy because workers spending money is what fuels economic growth. Consumers earning more money means that they can buy more goods and services, increasing the effective demand in an economy. Seems pretty simple, right? Well, yes, it is.

Getting Kicked Out and Arrested at a Romney Event


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

My friend Matt from the Harvard Kennedy School has a blog post up about a disturbing situation at a Mitt Romney campaign event he was attending, which, in my opinion, is emblematic of a larger trend of slowly taking away the rights and freedoms of people to speak out in dissent.  We see this occurring more and more at public and campaign events: private police details, people being denied entry, cordoned off “free speech” zones, etc.  It is as if political candidates and public officials are moving towards the “Minority Report” model to prevent outbursts at events such as politically motivated signs, public mic checks, or monopolizing limited question and answer time with particular questions by preventing those who may (but likely won’t) be engaging in such activity from the opportunity to attend.  I suppose it is a symptom of the 24/7 news cycle, the democratization of information, and the ease with which even the most mundane political “controversies” can be blown out of proportion and manipulated for partisan ends.

Here are some snippets of his article.

I’d been in New Hampshire for the past several days to follow the campaign and see some of the candidates in-person. Yesterday morning, I was chatting up a Romney campaign staffer before an event at the Gilchrist Manufacturing Company in Hudson, NH, when a police officer approached. Sir, we have to ask you to leave the premises.

I asked another question or two, and the cop had had enough: “You’re under arrest.” He took my things, handcuffed me behind my back, searched me, and tucked me into a nearby cruiser. A few minutes later, an officer removed me from the cruiser and had me lean up against another police car and spread my legs for a second search. Two or three TV crews had their cameras trained on us; I felt ashamed in a wholly unfamiliar way. I wanted to look directly at the cameras and explain what had happened, but I feared the police officers’ reaction.

It was clear to me that the two officers had no interest in discussing what the law actually said, or what my rights actually entailed. I was paperwork, and they wanted to get it over with. I kept asking questions, and at one point, one of them opened up the New Hampshire legal code and read me the definition of disorderly conduct. He read the words dully, as if they were just syllables, with no interest at all in what they meant.

Read the whole post here.


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387