Mitt Romney’s tax plan would be a boon for the wealthy, but a tax hike for 95% of Americans, according to a new nonpartisan study.

The report by researchers at the Tax Policy Center, a joint project of the Urban Institute and Brookings Institution, examined Romney’s suggestion of an across-the-board 20% income tax cut financed by closing existing loopholes and concluded there was no way to make the numbers work without burdening the vast majority of Americans with higher taxes.

Romney has not said which tax breaks he would end to finance his plan, but he has suggested that he would only look to breaks that benefit the wealthy. The report concluded that notion is a fantasy no matter how it’s constructed: There simply are too many middle class tax breaks on the table to avoid skewing the burden against the average American.

“Even if tax expenditures are eliminated in a way designed to make the resulting tax system as progressive as possible, there would still be a shift in the tax burden of roughly $86 billion from those making over $200,000 to those making less than that amount,” the report reads.

This is a story on Breitbart, by editor/lying hack Mike Flynn, that a friend who's a Marine vet forwarded along to me (no links for liars):

Anyone who wants to can view the actual complaint filed against Ohio. But much like Mitt Romney with Jared Diamond's book, I'm pretty certain that Mike Flynn never actually bothered to read what he was citing.

Flynn claims that the lawsuit is an attempt:

"to restrict [service members'] ability to vote in the upcoming election."

That's a lie. The very first sentence of the actual complaint reads:

Plaintiffs bring this lawsuit to restore in-person early voting for all Ohioans during the three days prior to Election Day – a right exercised by an estimated 93,000 Ohioans in the last presidential election.

The request is simple and direct: expand early voting for all citizens, not just military members. In no universe is that the same as saying restrict early voting for all citizens, including military members. It's pretty much the opposite of that.

Next comes the claim that:

"the Obama for America Campaign, the Democratic National Committee and the Ohio Democratic Party filed suit in OH to strike down part of that state's law governing voting by members of the military."

Insert chorus of Simon & Garfunkle's "The Boxer" here.

Today on Facebook, Mitt Romney claims that the Obama campaign is trying to “undermine” the ability of members of the military to vote in Ohio:

President Obama’s lawsuit claiming it is unconstitutional for Ohio to allow servicemen and women extended early voting privileges during the state’s early voting period is an outrage. The brave men and women of our military make tremendous sacrifices to protect and defend our freedoms, and we should do everything we can to protect their fundamental right to vote. I stand with the fifteen military groups that are defending the rights of military voters, and if I’m entrusted to be the commander-in-chief, I’ll work to protect the voting rights of our military, not undermine them.

This certainly sounds outrageous, but it is not true. Since 2005, Ohio has had in person early-voting in the three days prior to the election. This year, however, the Republican legislature in Ohio eliminated early voting during this period, except for members of the military. The Obama lawsuit is attempting to restore voting rights for all Ohioans, not restrict them for the military or any other group.

...

The Obama campaign’s request for a preliminary injunction does not seek to restrict military voting. Rather, it simply is asking that the full early voting period be open to all citizens, as it was under the law before this year.

Even Fox News acknowledges the purpose of the suit, noting “the lawsuit does not restrict the ability of military personnel to cast their ballots early.”

Romney’s spokesman, Ryan Williams, in an interview Saturday could point to no place in Obama’s lawsuit that seeks to restrict the rights of military voters…

Romney’s legal counsel, Katie Biber, said creating two separate classes of Ohio voters does not violate the 14th Amendment, though she also did not offer evidence that Obama’s lawsuit would make it tougher for members of the military to vote…

Mitt Romney attacked a lawsuit brought by President Obama’s campaign seeking the restoration of early voting rights for Ohio voters by falsely implying that Obama is trying to take away the early voting privileges for members of the military.

“President Obama’s lawsuit claiming it is unconstitutional for Ohio to allow servicemen and women extended early voting privileges during the state’s early voting period is an outrage,” Romney said in a statement Saturday.

Actually, the Obama campaign’s lawsuit, filed by the campaign in mid-July, explicitly asks a federal court to restore in-person early voting rights to all eligible Ohio voters on the three days preceding Election Day.

The suit does not seek to prevent members of the military from voting in person during that period, rather it seeks to force Ohio to give other voters (including, for instance, cops and firefighters) the same opportunity to vote.

Special Report guest host Shannon Bream falsely claimed that the Obama campaign is suing to prevent military voters in Ohio from having extra time to cast their ballots. In reality, the lawsuit seeks to allow all voters in Ohio to cast their ballots during the window open to military personnel and their families. The lawsuit does not seek to restrict voting by military families in any way.

Correspondent Ed Henry followed with a misleading report that included a clip of Mitt Romney saying that it would be a disservice to members of the military to try to impede them from voting. But Henry did not cite any evidence that the lawsuit is intended to impede military voting.

As The Cincinnati Enquirer reported on July 18, "Now, only uniformed military personnel, their spouses and their voting-age dependents [in Ohio] can vote through Monday, the day before the Nov. 6 election. Everyone else must vote by the Friday before Election Day. The campaign says that means all Ohio voters aren't being treated fairly and that's a violation of the U.S. Constitution's equal protection clause" (via Nexis).

Fifteen military organizations want to intervene in Obama v. Halsted, a lawsuit filed by the president's campaign in Ohio. The Obama filing claims that special early voting rights violate the 14th Amendment; the org leaders read that, and worry that their votes are in danger. Mitt Romney is with them.



That's all good, but the Obama campaign doesn't disagree with it. Here's the backstory. In the run-up to 2008, Democrats, who briefly ran the Secretary of State's office in Ohio, expanded early voting so that anyone could show up at polling sites in the days before the election. In 2011, the new Republican legislature and Secretary of State rolled this back. Early voting would now end on the Friday before election day. So the Obama campaign sued. This is how its argument begins.

...

If it wins, veterans will be able to vote early and so will everybody else in Ohio. To clear that up, the campaign filed a motion supporting the 15 military groups, reaffirming that "neither the substance of its Equal Protection claim, nor the relief requested, challenges the legislature’s authority to make appropriate accommodation, including early voting during the period in question, for military voters, their spouses or dependents."

Chopping the study’s key finding — that Romney’s tax plan will raise taxes on just about everyone except the exceptionally wealthy — into a convenient take home-size was a central focus of the Obama campaign this week and it used every method available to it to do so, including the president himself.

“An independent, non-partisan study found that one plan at least would give more tax cuts to millionaires and billionaires, and they’d pay for those tax cuts by raising taxes on the middle class — an average tax hike of more than $2,000 for families with children,” President Obama said at a White House event focused on his support for an extension of the Bush tax cuts on middle class families Friday.

...

The Obama campaign points to some half dozen campaign emails and online projects it devoted to the study this week when asked about the Tax Policy Center study push. The efforts included an online calculator the Obama campaign said would calculate a voter’s tax bill under Romney, an interactive map showing the “impact” of Romney’s plans on various states, and an email to supporters that pointed them to the study and its findings.

...

&feature=player_embedded

Though the Romney campaign has used TPC studies to its own benefit in the past, this time it called the group’s findings “a joke.”

The Romney campaign is pushing back against a new study from researchers at the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center suggesting Mitt Romney’s tax proposals would actually increase taxes for a whopping a 95% of Americans, denouncing the Tax Policy Center, a joint project of the Urban Institute and Brookings Institution, as a “liberal” group. While the Romney campaign hasn’t rebutted the substance of the study, they claim the Tax Policy Center should be dismissed entirely as a biased source.

Objective, Third-Party Analysis Showed Governor Perry’s Plan Would Raise Taxes On Millions Of American Families – But He Doesn’t Seem Interested In The Discussion.

According to a cited Forbes report, in 1989, Bain Capital purchased controlling interest in Damon Clinical Laboratories Corporation, a medical testing company located in Needham, Massachusetts.

In 1996, Damon admitted that from 1988 to 1993 it had shored up its earnings by submitting false claims to Medicare and other federal programs, and had agreed to pay , after being found guilty, a $35.3 million criminal fine — one of the largest corporate fines in U.S. history — and an additional $83.7 million to settle the lawsuits..

...

In 1993, Romney claimed he was unaware of any investigation — quoted in the Boston Globe on Oct. 10, 1993. When the Globe revisited the case during Romney’s run for governor in 2002, his story was different. Romney’s story changed about his knowledge of the investigation.

The Globe, disclosing that Romney had earned $473,000 from the sale, reported on Oct. 10, 2002

Romney Was On Damon’s Board Of Directors While The Fraud Took Place – He Initially Claimed He WasUnaware Of Any Criminal Investigation.
“Mitt Romney, former Republican challenger to US Sen. Edward M.Kennedy, who was a member of Damon’s board, said he was unaware of any investigation. … Romney said that[Damon’s then-CEO Robert] Rosen told the board in about 1992 ‘that all current practices at the company werenow in conformity with government regulations and that in the past there may have been practices which wouldnot be deemed appropriate.’”
(Kimberly Blanton, “Needham Lab Fined $ 119m For Fraud,”
The Boston Globe
, 10/10/96)


“Made Large Profits … From A Criminal Scheme To Fraudulently Bill The Federal Medicare System…”
“[Romney] and his venture capital firm made large profits from the 1993 sale of a Needham medical testingcompany whose robust revenues were generated in part from a criminal scheme to fraudulently bill thefederal Medicare system for unnecessary blood tests.”
(Frank Phillips, “Romney Profited On Firm Later Tied To Fraud,”
The Boston Globe
, 10/10/02)

“Pure And Simple … Corporate Greed Run Amok.”
“Damon Corp. pleaded guilty in 1996 to a federalconspiracy charge of defrauding the government of $25 million between 1988 and 1993. It paid a record $119million fine and penalty for a scheme that then-US Attorney Donald Stern labeled ‘a case, pure and simple, ofcorporate greed run amok.’”
(Frank Phillips, “Romney Profited On Firm Later Tied To Fraud,”
The Boston Globe
, 10/10/02

1993: Immediately Following Acquisition By Corning, Damon Closed Plant In Needham Heights, Laid Off115 Massachusetts Workers.
“Republican businessman Mitt Romney … helped direct a Massachusetts medicaldiagnostics company toward a merger that resulted in the permanent closure of a Needham Heights plant andlayoffs of about 115 Massachusetts workers. Damon Corp. was headquartered in Massachusetts for more than30 years until it was purchased by Corning Inc. in 1993 and the Needham facility was closed. … The day after themerger with Corning was completed, the new company notified the Massachusetts Department of Employmentand Training that it was permanently closing the Needham plant and laying off about 115 people.”
(Meg Vaillancourt,“Romney-Aided Deal Closed Damon Plant,”
The Boston Globe
, 10/9/94)

Romney “Feared” The Massachusetts Layoffs Would Come, But Voted To Approve Deal Anyway

Things are getting awkward for Sheldon Adelson, the casino magnate who pledged to spend a “limitless” amount of money to get Mitt Romney elected. Adelson’s latest woes stem from business practices surrounding his lucrative casino in Macau, the only Chinese city with legalized gambling.

The Macau operation has long been under scrutiny but a new in-depth investigation from ProPublica and PBS focused on allegations of improper, and perhaps in some cases illegal, business dealings by Adelson’s Las Vegas Sands company in China. While focusing on the possibility that Sands violated the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act with a $700,000 payment to a Chinese associate, PBS also released documents that bolstered accusations of business ties between Adelson’s shop and Chinese organized crime figures.

...

Because Nevada gambling authorities forbid doing any business with organized crime, Sands’s Las Vegas gambling licenses could hang in the balance. (Adelson and his company refused to comment for the PBS story.) But Adelson has other issues with his China operations.

...

Part of Adelson’s Chinese dealings, which came under federal scrutiny in 2011, went through a non-profit called the Adelson Center for U.S.-China Enterprise. According to a WikiLeaks cable flagged by Salon, the association, which was meant to facilitate business between the U.S. and China, was shut down by China after some “missteps” with “funds transfer mechanisms” used by Sands. Unlike competitors, the cable said, Sands lobbied Beijing directly instead of going through Macau authorities. Adelson and Sands deny any wrongdoing related to the federal investigation.

In 2005, Chinese Appliance Maker Haier Group, Working In Tandem With Bain Capital, Attempted – AndUltimately Failed – To Take Over Newton, IA-Based Maytag Corp.Haier Embarked On $1.3 Billion Takeover Bid For Iowa-Based Appliance Manufacturer Maytag.

“For years,American workers have worried about losing their jobs to low-cost workers in China. Now a new trend is emergingthat could be nearly as big: Wealthy Chinese companies are coming to the U.S. looking to swallow Americancompanies whole. Maytag Corp., the maker of such quintessentially American products as Maytag refrigerators,Amana microwaves and Hoover vacuum cleaners, disclosed Monday night a $1.28 billion takeover bid from agroup led by Haier America Trading, a unit of China’s Haier Group.”
(David Greising, “Chinese Firm Wants Maytag,”
Chicago Tribune
, 6/22/05)

Haier Is A Mammoth, State-Controlled Company With Opaque Financial Structures, UndisclosedOwnership Interests, Ties To Communist Party Elites And Manufacturing Facilities In Iran

"Obama was the Main Street candidate in 2008, and he's the Main Street candidate today"

If you add up the Wall Street contributions to the Obama campaign in 2008...it totals 3.6 million dollars. But ordinary people donated a total of 656.3 million dollars to the Obama campaign in 2008. So Obama got 182 times as much support from Main Street, as he did from Wall Street.

Myth 1: Everyone is required to buy insurance.

That’s not true. Over 80%* of Americans have insurance through their employers or receive insurance because they are in the military or are veterans or are poor or old. No one in these categories is required to buy individual insurance.

(Actually no one at all has to buy health insurance because, if they fall under that provision and don’t buy it, they can pay the penalty instead. The penalty is far cheaper than the cost of insurance.)

*81% of Americans under 65 have insurance. People over 65 have single-payer coverage; i.e., Medicare (with some holding additional private insurance).

Myth 2: People who don’t have insurance will be forced to buy insurance they can’t afford.

This is also untrue.

People with the lowest incomes are covered under Medicaid, which was expanded by the ACA for those with incomes up to 133% of the poverty level.

For those with incomes between 133% and 400% of the poverty level, subsidies are available so they can afford to buy health coverage in the new health care exchange.

There is a hardship exemption for those who don’t have insurance and say they can’t afford it.

And, as noted under myth 1, no one actually must buy health insurance, since they can pay the penalty instead.

(Please Go To Pollways Link For Other Myths, very informative)

How does the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) change health coverage in the U.S.?

The ACA makes dramatic changes to the way millions of Americans access health care. This comprehensive reform of health insurance attempts to make insurance more affordable, higher in quality and more accessible for people. It also expands Medicaid, imposes new responsibilities on individuals to purchase insurance and provides new incentives for employers to provide insurance for their employees. Together, these changes are estimated to expand coverage to 32 million people who were previously uninsured.

Insurance reforms

Beginning in 2014, the ACA requires health insurers to accept all applicants for insurance, regardless of their health status. In addition, insurers will no longer be allowed to charge higher premiums or exclude benefits because someone has a pre-existing condition. Most insurers will also be required to provide coverage that meets federal standards for benefits and cost-sharing.

As of September 23, 2010, a number of insurance reforms went into effect, including requiring insurers to:

Cover certain preventive services without deductibles or cost-sharing
Allow parents to keep adult children up to age 26 on their insurance
Cover all children under the age of 19, regardless of health status
Create an internal and external appeals process to handle consumer complaints and denials
Eliminate lifetime limits on benefits and significantly raise the annual limits for benefits (eventually it will also eliminate annual limits)
Spend a minimum of 80 percent of premiums on medical services and quality improvement
Justify unreasonable premium increases
Eliminate the practice of rescissions (when a health plan retroactively cancels coverage after the enrollee gets sick)
Allow patients to choose their health care professional as a primary care provide

For those that are uninsured
Without question, uninsured Americans will be most affected by health care reform. If you don’t have health insurance because you’re unemployed or don’t make enough to afford it, you’re going to get a subsidy to help cover the cost of coverage. The subsidy will be based on your income, but the result will be that at least 30 million people who couldn’t afford insurance will now theoretically be able to.

And if you have lingering doubts that this group of people really needed the government’s help, check out a couple of news stories we recently did about how the uninsured suffer:

This one is called Killer Hospital Bills: it’s about an uninsured woman went to the emergency room with stomach pains and emerged hours later with a $12,000 bill.
And here’s one about a senior citizen who had to file bankruptcy because of health costs.

So the news is good for uninsured Americans who needed and wanted coverage, but there’s another group of uninsured who may not be so happy: those that can afford insurance but choose to forgo the expense by going without. In an effort to encourage all Americans to have health insurance, beginning in 2014 these people will face fines for that kind of risk-taking. The proposed fine is 2.5% of income, up to $2,085, so the incentive to have insurance will be powerful.

This DHS site has some great information as well
Affordable Care Act: Opportunities for the Aging Network
http://aoa.gov/Aging_Statistics/Health_care_reform.aspx

What does the Supreme Court's health-care ruling mean for me?
The court's decision to uphold all but one component of the health-care law means new rules for insurers that have already taken effect will remain in place. Beginning in 2014, virtually all Americans will have to obtain health insurance or pay a penalty. There also will be new opportunities to get coverage, including state-based marketplaces known as exchanges* (through which individuals will be able to purchase private plans that meet strict benchmarks for quality) and federal subsidies to help low-income people buy plans on the exchanges. The law will also expand the eligibility rules for Medicaid, but the Court found that states can not be penalized if they decline to comply with the expansion, raising questions as to how effectively the federal government will be able to implement it.

Right-wing media are arguing that Wisconsin governor Scott Walker's victory in the Wisconsin recall election was a victory for the grassroots over unions and progressives. But, due to Citizens United and a loophole in Wisconsin campaign finance laws, the progressive message was swamped by conservative special interest money.

In Fact, Walker Had A Massive Fundraising Advantage

Wisconsin Campaign Finance Watchdog Group: "Pro-Walker Forces Have Spent About $48 Million Compared To $19 Million For Anti-Walker Forces." A June 4 Chicago Sun-Times article quoted campaign finance watchdog group Wisconsin Democracy Campaign who estimated that campaign spending benefitting Walker totaled about $48 million compared to $19 million for Barett.

Two-Thirds Of Walker's Direct Donations Came From Out-Of-State. The Chicago Sun-Times article further noted that the majority of Walker's direct contributions came from out-of-state donors.

...

Corporations, GOP Interest Groups, And Conservative Activists Spent Big Money On Behalf Of Walker.

NRA Spent $646,000 To Defeat Barrett. [Wisconsin Democracy Alliance, accessed 6/6/12]
Caterpillar Gave $40,000 To Walker. [Wisconsin Democracy Alliance, 2/28/12]
Tea Party Group FreedomWorks For America - Wisconsin Spent $46,445 On Behalf Of Walker. [Wisconsin Democracy Alliance, 5/9/12]
Conservative Activist And Rick Santorum Donor Foster Friess Donated $100,000 To Walker. [Wisconsin Democracy Alliance, 11/16/11]
Conservative Activist And Newt Gingrich Donor Sheldon Adelson Gave $250,000 To Walker. [Wisconsin Democracy Alliance, 3/30/12]
Texas Conservative Activist Bob Perry Gave More Than $500,000 To Walker. [Wisconsin Democracy Alliance, 11/16/11, 1/17/12]

Citizens United came down, it didn’t just nullify Wisconsin’s 1905 ban on corporate campaign cash, it also plunged much of the state’s campaign finance reporting into darkness.

“Because corporate and labor expenditures were previously illegal, there were no disclosure laws to regulate their spending,” said McCabe. “There’s been a precipitous drop off in transparency.”

Since Citizens United, Wisconsin’s Government Accountability Board requires independent expenditure groups to register as so-called “1.91 groups,” named for the state rule that created them. Of the more than $63 million spent in the race, $22 million has come from these groups — $16.3 million of it from Walker supporters — according to the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign.

Similar to federal super PACs, 1.91 groups can raise and spend unlimited corporate or union dollars and urge voters to support or oppose a candidate. Also, like federal super PACs, they must report their donors — except when they can avoid it.

Total spending on the race exceeded $65 million, and the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign’s Mike McCabe said once all the numbers are totaled that figure could exceed $75 million, doubling the maximum ever spent on any political campaign in the state.

That number was buttressed by a loophole in Wisconsin law that allowed Walker to raise unlimited donations from individuals for months, while Barrett had hard caps on his donations and could only begin fundraising two months ago when the recall became official. That allowed Walker to raise nearly $30 million and outspend Barrett by nearly 10-to-1. Walker and his allies more than doubled the amount Barrett and his backers spent on the race.

In the Badger State, Democratic gubernatorial challenger Tom Barrett is the one primarily relying on third-party efforts. Since he entered the fray in late March, the Milwaukee mayor has raised a mere $4 million for his campaign and is depending on outside groups backed by the labor movement to carry him to victory. By contrast, Scott Walker, the incumbent governor, has taken advantage of an arcane loophole in Wisconsin campaign-finance law, which has allowed him to take in contributions of more than $500,000 apiece from well-heeled supporters and build up a massive war chest of more than $30 million since he took office last year.

One reason for this switch: the loophole allowing unlimited donations benefits only candidates facing possible recall efforts, in this case, Walker. The law was passed in 1987 (and supported by then-state representative Barrett) to level the playing field for incumbents facing recall challenges, who would be otherwise handicapped by Wisconsin’s strict campaign-finance laws. Walker took this small loophole, designed to even the odds when state and local candidates faced an unexpected election, and used it to rake in tens of millions of dollars. Yet this loophole hasn’t necessarily increased the amount of money Walker has received to beat back the recall effort; rather it seems that large donations from millionaires and billionaires such as Sheldon Adelson and Foster Friess, which normally would have been directed to super PACs and third-party groups, have instead gone directly into the campaign’s coffers.

Medicare Fraud That Made Him Rich


In 1989, Romney led Bain Capital's purchase of Damon Corp., a medical testing company, and took a seat on the Board of Directors to better manage it. During Romney's four years, Bain tripled its investment, and Romney personally made $473,000 -- while Damon plumped its profits with Medicare fraud (running thousands of medical tests doctors didn't want, and billing Medicare for them). The company pled guilty to crimes committed during his tenure and paid a record fine of $119 million. Company President Joseph Isola pleaded no contest to fraud, and a vice president was also convicted.

Romney claims he "uncovered" the fraudulent claims and "took corrective action," but court records show that he did not notify prosecutors or stop the fraudulent billing. He just asked company lawyers what changes they could make to avoid prosecution, after the feds' LABSCAM prosecution targeted a different medical testing firm. The cheating continued, prosecutors say, until the day Bain sold the company to Corning. Furthermore, Damon Corp. was required to list in various SEC filings any significant legal risks it faced. Romney made no mention of the fraud he "uncovered," even though it led to a $119 million fine, the largest in history. Damon Corp. is another Bain acquisition that later went bankrupt, killing over a thousand jobs -- but not before Bain made $7.4 million in profit. By amazing coincidence, Rick Santorum also made a lot of money off of a company involved in Medicare fraud: Universal Health Care.

Top Aide Illegally Impersonating Police Officers

Well, it gets worse. According to three different anonymous sources, one who works for the Romney campaign, Garrity made up fake police badges -- bright silver plates with the seal of Massachusetts on them -- and gave them to several other staffers, who used them to order reporters and other people out of events, get past security guards, and avoid paying highway tolls. In fact, Garrity has been handing out badges since Romney was governor of Massachusetts.

So this was not just one staffer's personal fetish. Sources named at least two other Romney staffers who used the badges -- Mark Glanville and William Ritter. "They knew the badges were fake and probably illegal," the campaign source said. In fact, Garrity was Romney's right-hand man and rarely left his side. It's hard to believe that Mitt Romney himself did not notice the fact that Garrity was constantly flashing a police badge as they blew through security into various events. The Romney campaign has not commented on whether Mitt Romney knew about the badges.

"I saw my father march with Martin Luther King." (Romney's campaign later admitted that they didn't march on the same day, or in the same city)

"PETA is not happy that my dog likes fresh air." --on strapping his dog to the top of the car

"Hugo Chavez has tried to steal an inspiring phrase 'Patria o muerte, venceremos.' It does not belong to him. It belongs to a free Cuba." --invoking a phrase that translates to "Fatherland or death, we shall overcome," which Fidel Castro has used to close his speeches for years, and which is associated with Cuban oppression

"We should double Guantanamo!"

1. "Corporations are people, my friend… of course they are. Everything corporations earn ultimately goes to the people. Where do you think it goes? Whose pockets? Whose pockets? People's pockets. Human beings, my friend." —Mitt Romney to a heckler at the Iowa State Fair who suggested that taxes should be raised on corporations as part of balancing the budget (August 2011)

2. "I like being able to fire people who provide services to me." –Mitt Romney, using an unfortunate choice of words while advocating for consumer choice in health insurance plans (January 2012)

...

5. "I should tell my story. I'm also unemployed." —Mitt Romney, speaking in 2011 to unemployed people in Florida. Romney's net worth is over $200 million.

6. "There were a couple of times I wondered whether I was going to get a pink slip" –Mitt Romney, attempting to identify with the problems of average folk (January 2012)

Using an American war veteran as the face of their cause, two South Florida congressmen called on the governor Tuesday to immediately stop the state's purge of the voter rolls.

And in a separate move, Florida Democratic Sen. Bill Nelson sent a letter to the governor expressing his own concerns about the voter purging.

U.S. Rep. Ted Deutch, D-Boca Raton, and U.S. Rep. Alcee Hastings, D-Miramar, accused the Republican governor of using the roll cleanup as a ruse to disenfranchise voters just months before a presidential election.

...

"Voting is a fundamental, constitutionally guaranteed right," the coalition wrote. "As such it cannot be lightly withdrawn on the basis of a highly flawed and suspect process."

TALLAHASSEE — Six Democratic members of Congress are asking Florida Gov. Rick Scott to suspend a push to remove voters from the rolls.

Democrats sent a letter today to Scott questioning the timing and the accuracy of the effort to purge voters identified as non U.S. citizens.

The state has already put out an initial list of more than 2,600 people identified as non-U.S. citizens. But local election officials charged with checking the list have discovered errors.

State election officials have compared driver's licenses with voter registration data and found that as many as 182,000 registered voters are eligible to be in the country but ineligible to vote.

Those who signed the letter were: U.S. Reps. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Corrine Brown, Kathy Castor, Ted Deutch, Alcee Hastings and Frederica Wilson.

Florida Governor Rick Scott (R) has directed his administration to purge the state’s voting rolls of thousands of registered voters prior to the November election. But his list, which purports to include only “non-citizens,” targets mostly Democrats and Hispanics and, as ThinkProgress has documented, may disenfranchise hundreds of citizens who are eligible to vote.

The story of a sitting governor of a state with a history of presidential election shenanigans knowingly purging his own, eligible constituents from the voter rolls is the definition of major news, and yet remarkably, in the first five months of the year, The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal and USA Today have published a total of zero articles about Scott’s actions. The New York Times did slightly better, printing one story on page 16 of the Friday, May 18th edition. The article ran under the credulous headline: “Florida Steps Up Effort Against Illegal Voters.”

Democrats continued Thursday to blast new voter laws in Florida and 13 other states which they say have been crafted by Republican leaders to blunt turnout and damage President Obama’s re-election bid next year.

Democratic National Committee Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz, a member of Congress from Davie, said the party has launched a new website www.protectingthevote.org aimed at informing voters of the new standards — and rallying support for having them overturned. Florida’s law is already the subject of a lawsuit filed by the ACLU and voting rights organizations.

A U.S. Senate subcommittee also plans to hold a hearing in Florida in coming weeks on the new law, following a request by Florida Democratic Sen. Bill Nelson, who said the state’s new standard violates “basic rights.”

...

“By now, it’s well known they’re determined to roll back the right to vote and skew the 2012 presidential election,” Wasserman Schultz said.

By Debbie Wasserman Schultz

The national effort to restrict the right to vote has nothing to do with common sense; it is a callous political calculation designed to advantage Republicans in 2012. Rather than artificially slanting the electorate, it is time for Republicans to join the efforts of the president and the Democratic Party to create jobs, invest in our future, and address the challenges our nation faces. Maybe then the GOP wouldn't have to work so hard to stop Americans from voting.