99%,1%,47%,13%

If you pay no income taxes and receive Social Security and Medicare, both of which you paid for over a long history of work, then you are, according to Romney, one of the 47% who expect government to take care of you--he has no use for you.

What if you've paid $12,000 in property taxes, and have income of no more than $36,000? You are paying an effective tax rate of 33%, but you still pay no income tax, so you're one of the 47%. What if you earn $40,000, on which you pay payroll taxes of 7.65%, and you also have a property tax bill of $10,000. Then your effective rate is about 32%.

Mitt Romney says he paid "about 13%" of his income in "taxes," but didn't specify which taxes. The one tax year that he deigned to show us included a $77,000 tax write-off for what someone referred to as a "dancing horse" and he paid just over 13% on income taxes. While most people in the middle-income brackets pay at about that rate, Romney's no middle-income taxpayer.

In any case, the video revealing his statement about the 47%, brings up the question: is he one of the 47%, as well as one of the 1%? Many corporations pay no income tax, including GE, for example, and like the average for the bottom quintile of income earners, it had a negative rate of tax--it received subsidies that more than cancelled out any taxes due.

More than ever, Romney should release his past tax returns, if he wishes to appeal to more than a minority of American voters. But maybe he can't, because those returns would reveal either: a felony, like voting fraud--claiming Massachusetts residence to vote and California residence for tax purposes in 2008; or he paid no income taxes in some of the past years, despite multi-million dollar incomes.

Is he a member of the 1%? Certainly. Does he get it that most people struggle? No. He sees them as dependents on government (a projection?), and apparently would treat them that way.

He's a true Roman Senator, although instead of owning slaves and serfs, he's had no compunction driving workers from their jobs, and forcing others to accept dramatically reduced incomes, while he made millions.

The fact that he's ready to double-down on his 47% statement is even more eloquent. It demonstrates that he believes he can--and should--win election with only white males, only those who ascribe his statement to 'others' (minorities, especially), and only those who believe they "made it" on their own. It's a piece with Republicans' "we built that" misinterpretation of Obama's reference to government's role in creating the infrastructure necessary for wealth-creation.

If, despite all this, Romney manages to buy and/or steal the election, anyone not in the 1% will get a government that is actively opposed to their interests.

Man Threatens to Blow Up NY

When Paladino, endorsed by the Tea Party, and Sarah Palin, wins the Republican gubernatorial nomination in liberal New York State, this is definitely a national trend.

What's Carl Paladino for? He'd cut Medicaid by $20 billion, cut taxes by 10%, and state government spending by 20%. To deal with the looming deficits Governor Paterson has been warning against? He also calls for giving the new governor (if it's him) authoritarian powers to carry out his program.

Good luck on that. The State legislature, regardless of party control, will not give up its powers, especially since Paladino will have to run against almost all elected legislators. Not surprisingly, as a multimillionaire businessman, Paladino also calls for slashing regulations on business. Real revolutionary! Let the frackers drill, and ruin our water supply forever!

Paladino's signature slogan is "I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore!" The issue upon which he gained most traction up to the primary was his opposition to the so-called "Ground-zero Mosque." More strident than Lazio, his Republican opponent, he also pointed an accusing finger at Democrat Cuomo's support for the right of Muslims to build there. He'd use eminent domain to seize the site (two long blocks from "ground zero") to prevent Muslim developers from building their community center--in respect for our warriors fighting for our freedom overseas, etc.

He's been caught sending racist jokes and porn to colleagues via email, but his defenders say that it's "political correctness" that has to go. On his website he points out that the last NY governor from Buffalo (Grover Cleveland) became US President: he has "higher" ambitions.

What is it about Carl Paladino that energizes conservative voters? He's willing to say almost anything; he's been running for office for several cycles, but has been unbesmirched by the far-reaching scandals of the NY legislature: he's never held public office. He was opposed by most Republican leaders, and got only 8% of the vote in the party convention, so he's the ultimate outsider. But he brandished striking rhetoric, like promising to “take a baseball bat to Albany,” to break up entrenched politicos. Further, he does have some valid points: New Yorkers pay almost the highest taxes in the nation--especially property taxes--its legislature is dysfunctional and its government is one of the most bureaucratized.

But it's also got Wall Street: neither Paladino, nor Cuomo are willing to talk about taxing its huge profits, nor about taxing multimillionaires like him more fairly.

Paladino is the ultimate Roman Senator: he owes his appeal to his own money (he outspent Lazio 3 to 2), his "white-hot rhetoric" and perhaps to his class arrogance: he wrote of turning prisons into dormitories where welfare recipients would be taught hygiene!

If New Yorkers elect him (anything's possible), State politics will be even more strident, confrontational and disastrous.