The Romney Rule means tax cuts for millionaires and tax hikes for middle-class and low-income Americans. Hold Mitt accountable.

The Romney Rule means tax cuts for millionaires and tax hikes for middle-class and low-income Americans. Hold Mitt accountable.

Mitt Romney’s second bite at the tax plan apple, released yesterday, doubles down on his strategy to recycle the failed economic policies of the past: more tax breaks to millionaires, billionaires, and big oil; raising defense spending to arbitrarily high levels; and slashing corporate taxes while maintaining loopholes and special-interest giveaways (like the carried interest provision that allows hedge fund managers to pay a lower effective tax rate than their secretaries). And Romney does all this without a plan for how he’d offset the lost revenue other than blowing an even bigger hole in the deficit.

Worse still, while he slashes taxes for the wealthiest Americans and corporations, he maintains his severe cuts to Medicare, Social Security and other programs essential to the middle class. Romney’s earlier plan already included $2 trillion in tax cuts and now he’s added another $3 trillion, without a single specific proposal to pay for those tax cuts. For a person who says he’s a numbers guy, his plan simply doesn’t add up.

But hey, don’t take it from us. Here’s what others are saying:

• "Mitt Romney's tax plan is a mathematical disaster"
• "Report: Debt will swell under top GOP hopefuls' tax plans"
• "Romney's tax plan still a boon to rich, despite 1% talk"
• "Mitt Romney's boneheaded across-the-board tax cut plan"

Another day, another example of Romney and his campaign saying whatever it takes to get elected. On a conference call about Romney's latest economic proposal, an adviser said that Romney would "reconsider" closing the carried interest tax loophole. You might not have heard of this particular loophole, but you can be sure Romney knows it well: It's the one that allows him and the very wealthiest American to pay a very low tax rate. Because much of his income comes from capital gains, Romney directly benefits from the loophole in question. His tax rate is an astonishingly low 13.9 percent—much lower than many middle-class families and even lower than many millionaires. So why would he want to do away with it?

Romney himself has been clear that he doesn't want to close the loophole. He told Larry Kudlow on CNBC at the end of last month that "my view is that we don't raise taxes on anyone. I'm not looking to single out some group of people and say let's raise taxes." When Kudlow asked, "So you'd keep the carried interest?" Romney didn't hedge: "Yes."

Another day, another example of Romney and his campaign saying whatever it takes to get elected. On a conference call about Romney's latest economic proposal, an adviser said that Romney would "reconsider" closing the carried interest tax loophole. You might not have heard of this particular loophole, but you can be sure Romney knows it well: It's the one that allows him and the very wealthiest American to pay a very low tax rate. Because much of his income comes from capital gains, Romney directly benefits from the loophole in question. His tax rate is an astonishingly low 13.9 percent—much lower than many middle-class families and even lower than many millionaires. So why would he want to do away with it?

Romney himself has been clear that he doesn't want to close the loophole. He told Larry Kudlow on CNBC at the end of last month that "my view is that we don't raise taxes on anyone. I'm not looking to single out some group of people and say let's raise taxes." When Kudlow asked, "So you'd keep the carried interest?" Romney didn't hedge: "Yes."

As Mitt Romney campaigns in Nevada, a state hit hard by the housing crisis, he has yet to offer a single proposal to lend a hand to America’s struggling homeowners, make it easier for them to refinance their homes, or help them avoid foreclosure. Or, as Rep. Jan Schakowsky put it in a call slamming Romney's housing policies (or lack thereof) today: "He hasn’t offered any ideas to help these families recover their piece of the American dream and the dignity that comes with having a home to raise a family in."

Instead, he believes we should let the foreclosure process "run its course and hit the bottom." In other words, Romney would let homeowners lose their homes and let the banks make a quick buck from the wreckage of American middle-class families. And he had the gall to tell underwater Florida homeowners that the banks are "feeling the same thing" they are.

If you’re a homeowner in this country trying to make ends meet, Romney has four simple words for you: You’re on your own.

Banks, on the other hand…

There's not much we've learned from the single tax return that Mitt Romney so generously released to the American people this week—but what we have learned is troubling.

To review: In addition to keeping significant sums of money invested in notorious offshore tax havens like the Cayman Islands and Luxembourg, Romney had $3 million in a Swiss bank account that he closed in 2010 for fear of political embarrassment. No one in the Romney camp has explained why Romney would have or need a Swiss bank account.

Today, the Los Angeles Times reported that Romney never disclosed the Swiss bank account or offshore investments in the personal financial disclosure form—required by all who run for federal office—he filed in August:

"A review by the Los Angeles Times/Tribune Washington Bureau found that at least 23 funds and partnerships listed in the couple’s 2010 tax returns did not show up or were not listed in the same fashion on Romney’s most recent financial disclosure, including 11 based in low-tax foreign countries such as Bermuda, the Cayman Islands and Luxembourg.

"Many of the undisclosed funds are affiliated with Bain Capital, the Boston-based private equity firm Romney ran for 15 years. Several others are apparently unrelated offshore entities with mysterious names such as Babson 2006-1, which is based in the Cayman Islands, and Barracuda Investments, which has an address in Dublin but appears to be solely owned by Golden Gate Capital, a private equity firm based in San Francisco."

Remember, Romney's main excuse for why he wasn't going to release his tax returns to the public was that his personal financial disclosure was sufficient. But when not one, not two, but at least 23 major items are conveniently missing from said personal financial disclosure, Romney's already dubious argument is utterly shot.

Romney continues to prove his willingness to hide critical information from the American public—which should be troubling to all voters, regardless of party. How can we trust him on his word alone? We're calling on Romney to reveal at least as many years of tax returns as his father, George Romney, did when he ran for president in 1968: 12 years. Add your name to join us in demanding basic transparency and accountability from Mitt Romney.

From: Democratic National Committee
To: Interested Parties
Date: January 24, 2012
Re: Seven Things You Won’t Hear About Mitt Romney’s Economic Record in His Speech Today

Today, Mitt Romney will deliver a major campaign speech aimed at distorting the President’s record and vision in advance of tonight’s State of the Union address. Romney knows that unlike President Obama, who will focus tonight on laying out a blueprint for an America that’s built to last and where hard work and responsibility are rewarded, he can’t win by running on his own record. That’s because it turned out to be an absolute disaster for America’s working and middle-class families. So today, you’ll hear plenty from Mitt Romney as he continues to say anything to get elected – but here are seven things about Romney’s real record and policies that we can guarantee you won’t hear today.

#1 – ROMNEY ENRICHED HIMSELF BY FIRING WORKERS, CUTTING BENEFITS AND PENSIONS

From day one, Mitt Romney has staked his whole campaign on the claim that his “real world” experience as a so-called job creator in the private sector makes him uniquely qualified to lead our nation. But a closer look at Romney’s actual record as a corporate raider for Bain Capital shows a very different picture.

According to a Los Angeles Times article last month examining Mitt Romney’s job creation record at Bain, “Under Romney’s leadership, Bain became one of the nation’s top leveraged-buyout firms, helping lead a trend in which companies were acquired using debt often pledged against their own assets or earnings.” Furthermore, “like other leveraged-buyout firms, Romney and his team also maximized returns by firing workers, seeking government subsidies, and flipping companies quickly.”

One such company was GS Industries – a steel mill in Kansas City that was acquired by Bain Capital and where, as the article notes, “More than 700 workers were fired, losing not only their jobs but health insurance, severance and a chunk of their pension benefits. GSI retirees also lost their health insurance and other benefits.” As for Mitt Romney and his business partners, “Bain partners received about $50 million on their initial investment, a 100% gain.”

#2 – ROMNEY’S FORMER COLLEAGUE SAID THEIR GOAL WAS NEVER TO CREATE JOBS – IT WAS TO CREATE WEALTH

Serious doubt has been cast on Mitt Romney’s assertion that he was trying to create jobs during his time at Bain Capital. But perhaps the most telling disclosure of all came from Marc B. Walpow, a former managing partner at Bain who worked closely with Romney for nine years. As Walpow recently told the Los Angeles Times, “I never thought of what I do for a living as job creation. The primary goal of private equity is to create wealth for your investors.”

#3 – ROMNEY’S RECORD AS A CORPORATE RAIDER AT BAIN COST 850 FLORIDA WORKERS THEIR JOBS

Hardworking Americans in any number of communities across the country could tell you firsthand the very real impacts of Mitt Romney’s years at Bain. That was certainly the case at Dade Behring, a medical-equipment company in Florida. After Bain bought the company and ran it into the ground, 850 workers in Miami – and twice as many nationwide – lost their jobs.

In the words of Cindy Hewitt, a Miami resident who served as human resources manager at Dade Behring, “What bothers me most is that Romney’s campaign says he was a creator of jobs. I didn’t see that in any way, shape or form. He didn’t create jobs. He slashed and burned jobs.”

But what was devastating to hundreds of Floridians and their families was good news to Mitt Romney. As the New York Times reported last November, Bain made nearly $250 million, but it came at a very high cost: “At Bain Capital’s direction, Dade quadrupled the money it owed creditors and vendors. It took steps that propelled the business toward bankruptcy.”

#4 – WITH ROMNEY AS GOVERNOR, MASSACHUSETTS PLUMMETED TO 47TH OUT OF 50 IN JOB CREATION WHILE WAGES AND INCOME FELL

With respect to creating jobs, Mitt Romney didn’t do much better in the public sector. In fact, with Romney at the helm as the Governor of Massachusetts, the state fell to 47th out of 50th in job creation. Furthermore, Massachusetts residents saw their incomes and wages fall. According to the Massachusetts Budget and Policy Center, between 2003 and 2005, the typical worker in Massachusetts had a decline in wages close to five percent, “the largest decline in the country during that period.” Additionally, under then-Governor Romney, U.S. Census data shows that the median household income in Massachusetts decreased $1,963 in real terms.

#5 – UNDER ROMNEY’S LEADERSHIP, MANUFACTURING DECLINED BY TWICE THE NATIONAL AVERAGE AND GOVERNMENT JOB GROWTH INCREASED 6 TIMES THE RATE OF PRIVATE SECTOR GROWTH

But that wasn’t the end of the bad news for Massachusetts workers under Mitt Romney. For all of Romney’s tall tales about his “real-world” experience in business – which was once a central premise of his campaign for Massachusetts governor, just as it is today – the reality is that for every one private sector job that was created in Massachusetts, there were six government jobs created. Given this record, it’s odd to see Mitt Romney out on the campaign trail railing against public sector jobs – where was Mitt Romney the anti-government crusader back then?

And manufacturing jobs in Massachusetts declined by twice the national average – which as the Boston Globe reported was the “third worst record in the country.”

#6 – ROMNEY’S TAX PLAN HURTS WORKING AND MIDDLE-CLASS AMERICANS BUT GIVES HEFTY TAX CUT TO WEALTHIEST FEW

Mitt Romney has said that his tax plan is designed to help middle-class families. But the truth is that Romney’s tax plan would actually increase the federal budget deficit and give more tax cuts to the wealthiest Americans while providing little or no relief to the middle class and those still working to get there.

Under Romney’s plan, people making more than $1 million would get an average tax cut of $146,000, while many middle class and working families would actually see their taxes increase. This plan shows just how out of touch Mitt Romney really is. He’s out there advocating for a plan that gives more tax cuts to millionaires and billionaires while working families foot the bill, and he’s wondering why his support among middle-class voters has cratered?

#7 – MITT ROMNEY WANTS TO LET WALL STREET WRITE ITS OWN RULES AGAIN

Mitt Romney apparently prefers an economy where fewer people succeed while most Americans get left behind. That’s why he wants to roll back President Obama’s financial reforms and let Wall Street write its own rules again, and he wants to return to the same policies that caused the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. Why doesn’t Romney think America’s working and middle-class families deserve basic protections from the same Wall Street greed and recklessness that already put so many of them at risk?

CONCLUSION

With all of the damage that Mitt Romney has already caused for working and middle-class Americans – in both the private and public sectors – it’s not hard to see why Mitt Romney would be quick to change the subject. For Romney, the truth hurts – and that’s why today, you’ll see him try to dodge accountability by launching false attacks against President Obama and his vision for restoring our economic security. But voters deserve better. They deserve to know exactly what Mitt Romney’s leadership has looked like for middle-class folks and those still struggling to get there. And once they see Romney’s real record, they’ll know exactly why he continues to run from it every single day.

It's only Monday afternoon, but the week is already off to a very bad start for Mitt Romney.

Following his electoral collapse in Saturday's South Carolina primary, Romney released a new ad in Florida attacking Newt Gingrich and his connections to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. But if Romney had a chance to read his hometown paper this morning, he would've found an article pointing out that not only does Romney himself have major investments in the very same mortgage giants—but he's also been making significant amounts of money off these investments for years. And he can't plead ignorance: Think Progress notes that "unlike most of Romney’s financial holdings, which are held in a blind trust that is overseen by a trustee and not known to Romney, this particular investment was among those that would have been known to Romney."

Then, during a roundtable this morning with Florida homeowners—44 percent of whom are underwater on their mortgages—Romney told these struggling Floridians that banks are "feeling the same thing you're feeling." So not only are corporations people in Romney's eyes, but they have feelings too. Romney's proved more than once that when it comes to the issue of housing policy, he's hopelessly out of touch. But this morning, he managed to outdo himself.

Just one of these would make for a bad Monday for the average candidate. But it's really got to sting for Romney—because he needs all the help he can get in Florida. Two polls, released in the past day, have Gingrich up by nine points in Florida—a truly stark turnaround for Romney, who, prior to his South Carolina slump, was 20 points ahead in the Sunshine State. It's clear that Romney's not connecting with middle-class voters.

And finally, there's a Republican presidential debate tonight on NBC—and judging by his recent poor debate performances, we're guessing Romney is none too excited about the prospect. We'll be watching closely to see what Romney says and does tonight in Tampa—and we'll be fact checking all the candidates on Twitter. Check back later tonight for our debate headquarters site.

To: Interested Parties

From: Brad Woodhouse, Communications Director

Date: October 29, 2011

Re: A Rough Two Weeks for Mitt Romney

The past two weeks have been brutal for Mitt Romney on the campaign trail. Self-inflicted wounds like waffling on basic issues and callously standing with Wall Street and the big banks over the middle class have brought to the fore issues about Mitt Romney as a candidate that were fatal when he ran for President the first time: that he is wholly out of touch with the concerns of ordinary Americans and that he is a finger-in-the-wind politician who lacks any core convictions.

As the Republican presidential frontrunner continues to travel the country talking about his proposals for the housing crisis, taxes, foreign policy and any number of issues, the American people are learning that from his politically motivated calculations to his out-of-touch positions, Mitt Romney would be a disaster for middle-class families and he cannot be trusted to lead.

Mitt Romney: Let Struggling Homeowners “Hit Rock Bottom”

At the beginning of last week, in comments made to the Las Vegas Review-Journal, Mitt Romney said that his plan for America’s struggling homeowners—hard-working Americans who in many cases have been cheated, scammed and seen the value of their homes plummet as a result of Wall Street’s risky bets—is simply to let the foreclosure crisis “run its course and hit the bottom.” That way, Romney argued, banks and investors could then come in and scoop up the properties and rent or sell them for profit.

Mitt Romney’s position that we should allow homeowners to “hit rock bottom”—most of whom are responsible and find themselves in their current straits through no fault of their own—is callous and appalling. It treats the homes of honest, hard-working Americans like nothing more than Monopoly pieces that bankers can use to get rich. According to Mitt Romney, American families who work hard and play by the rules should be kicked out of their homes so that his friends on Wall Street—the same corporate executives whose recklessness crashed the housing market and our economy in the first place—can try to turn a profit.

Perhaps we shouldn’t be surprised by Romney’s proposal to let struggling homeowners fend for themselves—this is, after all, the same Mitt Romney who made a fortune firing workers and sending their jobs overseas. It’s the same Mitt Romney who said that “corporations are people” and called tax relief of $1,500 for a typical middle-class family “little Band-Aids.” And it’s the same Mitt Romney who wants to repeal Wall Street reform and let bankers write their own rules again, all while handing out more tax breaks to the wealthiest Americans.

Meanwhile, President Obama is fighting to create jobs and to adopt policies that give underwater homeowners a chance to refinance and stay in their homes. Earlier this week, he outlined a series of executive actions that will be carried out by the Federal Housing Finance Agency which will make it easier for responsible homeowners who have little or no equity in their homes to take advantage of current low mortgage rates. These actions will help middle-class families who are struggling to make their payments—and it’s a far cry from the proposals of Mitt Romney, who sounds more like he’s running to be CEO of a hedge fund than President of the United States.

This episode was not just appalling because of the callous approach that Mitt Romney took towards struggling homeowners—but because of the sheer hypocrisy it showed. Just months earlier, Mitt Romney appeared in a neighborhood hit hard by the housing crisis and expressed sympathy for the plight of struggling homeowners (as if he might offer them some relief) to score some political points and to attack the President—just to turn around months later and tell them tough luck—you’re on your own.

Mitt Romney: Keep America’s Troops in Iraq Without a Plan

On Friday of last week, President Obama announced the end to the war in Iraq, and that all of our troops will come home by the end of the year. In doing so, the President followed through on one of his core promises to the American people: that he would end the Iraq war in a responsible manner and bring our troops home.

Following President Obama’s announcement, Mitt Romney was at it again—releasing a statement attacking the President in which he called the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq a “political calculation” and suggested that American troops ought to remain there indefinitely. This is an astonishing charge coming from Mitt Romney, who has taken multiple positions on virtually every major foreign policy issue that the U.S. has confronted over the past several years and changes his tune day in and day out for sheer political gain.

The fact is that when Mitt Romney delivered a foreign policy speech earlier this month, he didn’t lay out a plan to end the war in Iraq—he barely even mentioned it, and it seems he is willing to leave American troops there indefinitely without identifying a new mission. This puts Mitt Romney at odds with the overwhelming majority of the American people who believe we need to bring our troops home from Iraq now. The fact that Mitt Romney is calling the President’s effort to bring America’s servicemen and women home for the holidays a “political calculation” says a lot about Romney’s own judgment and preparedness to be commander-in-chief.

While the American people still have no idea what Mitt Romney’s plan would be for the war in Iraq—and there’s a good chance Mitt Romney has no idea either—the President’s announcement last week demonstrates that as commander-in-chief he does what he says he will do, and his actions have made our nation stronger and more secure.

Mitt Romney: Shift Our Country’s Tax Burden Onto the Middle Class

Mitt Romney has also been facing recent criticism over the last couple of weeks for his economic plan, which doubles down on the failed policies of the past with more handouts for millionaires, billionaires and large corporations while middle-class families are left to fend for themselves.

For starters, Mitt Romney wants to keep the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, which were set to expire this year. So much for fiscal responsibility—according to the Office of Management and Budget, extending the Bush tax cuts for the top 2 percent of America’s taxpayers would cost $700 billion.

The largest tax cut in Mitt Romney’s economic plan would, unsurprisingly, go to corporations. Romney promised to immediately slash the corporate tax rate which would do nothing for the middle class yet would cost our nation $915.5 billion, according to an analysis conducted by the Tax Policy Center. All this while he dismisses the President's plan for a middle-class tax cut to the tune of $1,500 for the typical family as nothing more than "little Band-Aids."

Mitt Romney also appears to be embracing the flat tax. In the past, Romney has criticized flat tax proposals—describing one such proposal as “a tax cut for fat cats”—but more recently has said, “I love a flat tax.” Which is it? Americans deserve a straight answer, as the flat tax amounts to a tax cut for the rich which shifts more and more of the tax burden to the middle class.

Romney’s regressive policy on taxes perhaps is only exceeded in its harm to the middle class and seniors by his approach to the rest of the budget—an approach that endorses House Republican/Tea Party plans to end Medicare as we know it, cut Social Security to the bone and slash spending on every promising initiative to create jobs and make America more globally competitive—everything from education to job training and research and development.

Taken together, these are policies that our nation simply can’t afford, and would put a larger share of the burden on working families.

Conclusion

Mitt Romney has had a rough couple of weeks—that’s because the American people are learning more and more about his out-of-touch policies that would simply help the wealthiest few and offer no economic security to middle-class families. Americans also continue to learn more about a man whose pursuit of higher office is more important than any animating principle or convictions about what he would actually do as president or what he actually stands for. To say that Mitt Romney flips around on his positions more than a weathervane would be an insult to weathervanes.

As Mitt Romney clings to his status as frontrunner of the GOP presidential field, even Republicans seem to be nervous about who Mitt Romney really is and what he actually believes. He continues to garner just a quarter of the Republican primary vote—hardly a ringing endorsement from his own party. And while a right wing primary electorate may forgive Mitt Romney the occasional flip-flop if he is flopping in their direction; and while they can likely live with a person who believes in the tried and failed trickle-down economics that Mitt Romney is promising to visit upon Americans, over the last two weeks Mitt Romney has filled in a portrait of himself as an out of touch, calculating and value-less politician that will not resonate broadly with the American people.