1984 Revisited

The George Orwell’s novel 1984 spoke of a future world where government would control everything and be able to poke into every nook and cranny to observe what its citizens were doing. 1984 has come and gone but some of the concepts from the novel have remained and been updated. Business has now joined government in the effort to look into our privates! That is the information highway is wide open! Facebook, Twitter and the other social media have opened the floodgates to our most personal information. So not only is Big Brother watching but the World Wide Web is looking into our most private resources as well! So change your passwords often, turn on your fire walls and be sure to encrypt all of your information because you never know who is watching!

Romney Isn’t Concerned

Romney Isn’t Concerned

By PAUL KRUGMAN

If you’re an American down on your luck, Mitt Romney has a message for you: He doesn’t feel your pain. Earlier this week, Mr. Romney told a startled CNN interviewer, “I’m not concerned about the very poor. We have a safety net there.”

Faced with criticism, the candidate has claimed that he didn’t mean what he seemed to mean, and that his words were taken out of context. But he quite clearly did mean what he said. And the more context you give to his statement, the worse it gets.

First of all, just a few days ago, Mr. Romney was denying that the very programs he now says take care of the poor actually provide any significant help. On Jan. 22, he asserted that safety-net programs — yes, he specifically used that term — have “massive overhead,” and that because of the cost of a huge bureaucracy “very little of the money that’s actually needed by those that really need help, those that can’t care for themselves, actually reaches them.”

This claim, like much of what Mr. Romney says, was completely false: U.S. poverty programs have nothing like as much bureaucracy and overhead as, say, private health insurance companies. As the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities has documented, between 90 percent and 99 percent of the dollars allocated to safety-net programs do, in fact, reach the beneficiaries. But the dishonesty of his initial claim aside, how could a candidate declare that safety-net programs do no good and declare only 10 days later that those programs take such good care of the poor that he feels no concern for their welfare?

Also, given this whopper about how safety-net programs actually work, how credible was Mr. Romney’s assertion, after expressing his lack of concern about the poor, that if the safety net needs a repair, “I’ll fix it”?

Now, the truth is that the safety net does need repair. It provides a lot of help to the poor, but not enough. Medicaid, for example, provides essential health care to millions of unlucky citizens, children especially, but many people still fall through the cracks: among Americans with annual incomes under $25,000, more than a quarter — 28.7 percent — don’t have any kind of health insurance. And, no, they can’t make up for that lack of coverage by going to emergency rooms.

Similarly, food aid programs help a lot, but one in six Americans living below the poverty line suffers from “low food security.” This is officially defined as involving situations in which “food intake was reduced at times during the year because [households] had insufficient money or other resources for food” — in other words, hunger.

So we do need to strengthen our safety net. Mr. Romney, however, wants to make the safety net weaker instead.

Specifically, the candidate has endorsed Representative Paul Ryan’s plan for drastic cuts in federal spending — with almost two-thirds of the proposed spending cuts coming at the expense of low-income Americans. To the extent that Mr. Romney has differentiated his position from the Ryan plan, it is in the direction of even harsher cuts for the poor; his Medicaid proposal appears to involve a 40 percent reduction in financing compared with current law.

So Mr. Romney’s position seems to be that we need not worry about the poor thanks to programs that he insists, falsely, don’t actually help the needy, and which he intends, in any case, to destroy.

Still, I believe Mr. Romney when he says he isn’t concerned about the poor. What I don’t believe is his assertion that he’s equally unconcerned about the rich, who are “doing fine.” After all, if that’s what he really feels, why does he propose showering them with money?

And we’re talking about a lot of money. According to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, Mr. Romney’s tax plan would actually raise taxes on many lower-income Americans, while sharply cutting taxes at the top end. More than 80 percent of the tax cuts would go to people making more than $200,000 a year, almost half to those making more than $1 million a year, with the average member of the million-plus club getting a $145,000 tax break.

And these big tax breaks would create a big budget hole, increasing the deficit by $180 billion a year — and making those draconian cuts in safety-net programs necessary.

Which brings us back to Mr. Romney’s lack of concern. You can say this for the former Massachusetts governor and Bain Capital executive: He is opening up new frontiers in American politics. Even conservative politicians used to find it necessary to pretend that they cared about the poor. Remember “compassionate conservatism”? Mr. Romney has, however, done away with that pretense.

At this rate, we may soon have politicians who admit what has been obvious all along: that they don’t care about the middle class either, that they aren’t concerned about the lives of ordinary Americans, and never were.

A version of this op-ed appeared in print on February 3, 2012, on page A25 of the New York edition with the headline: Romney Isn’t Concerned.

Romney, the Rich and the Rest

Romney, the Rich and the Rest

By CHARLES M. BLOW

Published: February 3, 2012

No one should be surprised that the Tin Man has a tin ear. After all, Mitt Romney is the same multimillionaire who joked that he was “unemployed” while he was “earning” more in one day than most Americans earn in a year and paying a lower rate on those earnings than most Americans do.

This is the same man who bragged last month that he liked to fire people at a time when nearly 13 million people are out of work and who accepted the endorsement this week of Donald Trump, who has made “You’re Fired!” his television catchphrase.

This is the same man who in November claimed that federal employees are making “a lot more money than we are.” What?! We? What we? Please direct me to the federal employees with the $20 million paychecks. In fact, The Washington Post pointed out in November that federal employees on average “are underpaid by 26.3 percent when compared with similar nonfederal jobs, a ‘pay gap’ that increased by about 2 percentage points over the last year while federal salary rates were frozen.”

And who could forget his remark that “corporations are people.” Classic.

But this week when Romney said that he wasn’t concerned about the very poor in this country, he jumped in the pickle barrel and went over the waterfall.

First, his statement:

“I’m not concerned about the very poor. We have a safety net there. If it needs repair, I’ll fix it. I’m not concerned about the very rich. They’re doing just fine. I’m concerned about the very heart of America — the 90-95 percent of Americans who right now are struggling.”

Romney went on to say that his campaign was focused on “middle-income Americans” and that “we have a very ample safety net” for the poor.

He later tried to clarify, saying that his comments needed context. Then he said that the comments were a “misstatement” and that he had “misspoke.” Yeah, right.

Where to begin?

First, a report from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities last month pointed out that Romney’s budget proposals would take a chainsaw to that safety net. The report points out that cuts proposed by Romney would be even more draconian than a plan from Representative Paul Ryan: “Governor Romney’s budget proposals would require far deeper cuts in nondefense programs than the House-passed budget resolution authored by Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan: $94 billion to $219 billion deeper in 2016 and $303 billion to $819 billion deeper in 2021.”

What does this mean for specific programs? Let’s take the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, since “food stamps” have been such a talking point in the Republican debates. The report says the Romney plan “would throw 10 million low-income people off the benefit rolls, cut benefits by thousands of dollars a year, or some combination of the two.  These cuts would primarily affect very-low-income families with children, seniors and people with disabilities.”

Does that sound like a man trying to “fix” our social safety nets? Absolutely not. Romney is so far up the beanstalk that he can no longer see the ground.

Then let’s take the fact that a report last month by the Tax Policy Center found that his tax plan would increase after-tax income for millionaires by 14.5 percent while increasing the after-tax income of those making less than $20,000 by less than 1 percent and of those making between $30,000 and $40,000 by less than 3 percent.

For a man who’s not worried about the rich, he sure seems to want them to rake in more cash.

This has nothing to do with context. This has everything to do with a caviar candidate’s inability to relate to a chicken-soup citizenry.

Then there is the “ample safety net” nonsense. No one who has ever been on the low end of the income spectrum believes this, not even Republicans. According to a Pew Research Center survey conducted in October, even most Republicans and Republican-leaning independents who make less than $30,000 a year, which accounts for about a quarter of all Republicans, say that the government doesn’t do enough to help the poor. Only a man who has never felt the sting of poverty or seen its ravages would say such a thing.

But perhaps the most pernicious part of his statement was the underestimating of the rich and poor and the elasticized expansion of the term “middle income” or middle class. Romney suggests that 95 percent of Americans are in this group. Not true.

According to the Census Bureau, the official poverty rate in 2010 was 15.1 percent.

And that’s the income poor. It doesn’t even count the “asset poor.” A report issued this week by the Corporation for Enterprise Development found that 27 percent of U.S. households live in “asset poverty.” According to the report, “These families do not have the savings or other assets to cover basic expenses (equivalent to what could be purchased with a poverty level income) for three months if a layoff or other emergency leads to loss of income.”

On the other hand, the definition of “rich” is more nebulous. However, according to a December Gallup report, Americans set the rich threshold at $150,000 in annual income. And according to the U.S. Census Bureau 8.4 percent of households had an income of $150,000 or more in 2010.

So at the very least, nearly a fourth of all Americans are either poor or rich.

That would leave about three-fourths somewhere in the middle, but not all middle class. Tricking the poor to believe they’re in it, and allowing the wealthy to hide in it, is one of the great modern political deceptions and how we’ve arrived at our current predicament.

According to a New York Times/CBS News poll conducted last month, nearly a fifth of families making less than $15,000 said that they were middle class and nearly two-fifths of those making more than $100,000 said that they were middle class.

Romney is not only cold and clumsy, he’s disastrously out of touch, and when talking about real people, out of sorts. If only he had a heart, and if only that heart was connected to his brain.

•

I invite you to join me on Facebook and follow me on Twitter, or e-mail me at chblow@nytimes.com.

A version of this op-ed appeared in print on February 4, 2012, on page A21 of the New York edition with the headline: Romney, the Rich and the Rest.

The Season of the Political Junkie

I have often looked at politics like a sports fan might look at football. That is why am such an aficionado of the political season with all its debates and brouhaha! Too be sure I put little credence on what they say because I am very much aware of what happens to their promises. Still it is fun to get my snacks and sit in front of the television and see them argue and put on their acts. It’s often more fun then CSI or NCIS!

About Caring For Widow and Orphans and Such

For a while I thought that Mitt Romney had a clue on how to run a political campaign that us until he opened his mouth to reporters to say that there was not need for him to address the needs of the poor. He seemed to say that the poor had their food stamps and government programs to care for them. And so he was going to concentrate on taking care of the middle class. His words made me put him on the same level as Newt!

What a bunch of hypocrites. And these guys are trying to get the support of so-called Christian groups!

It's not your grandpa's Florida - CNN.com

 

It's not your grandpa's Florida

By John Avlon, CNN Contributor

updated 10:39 PM EST, Mon January 30, 2012

Myths of the Sunshine State

STORY HIGHLIGHTS

• John Avlon: Florida is not one-dimensional; it contains left, right and center voters
• Avlon: It's not "God's waiting room"; Only 17% of residents are seniors, 22% are under 18
• Cuban-Americans, usually conservative, are only 30% of the Hispanic population, he says
• Avlon: State has aspects of Latin America, Caribbean, deep South, young, old, rich, poor

Editor's note: John Avlon is a CNN contributor and senior political columnist for Newsweek and The Daily Beast. He is co-editor of the new book "Deadline Artists: America's Greatest Newspaper Columns."

(CNN) -- Florida is the traditional tie-breaking primary in the January gantlet -- but there's very little that's traditional about the Sunshine State. It is a sprawling cross section of 10 media markets and one of the most diverse states in the nation, containing communities of voters across the political spectrum.

But we talk about politics in shorthand, and many stereotypes endure long after they are bypassed by reality. So here are three stubborn myths about the Sunshine State to think about as Floridians go the polls on Tuesday.

1) It's senior-citizen central: This stereotype started in the post-war boom, as legions of grandparents sought out the warmth of Florida to ease their aching bones. The state came to be seen as a land of early-bird specials, bad drivers and retirement communities punctuated by amusement parks -- "God's waiting room." But in the 1980s, young families began to move into Florida en masse, following economic opportunity and now-ubiquitous air-conditioning.

Today, just 17% of Florida's population comprises senior citizens -- just above the national average, according to the Almanac of American Politics. Moreover, 22% of Floridians are under-18 -- a number boosted by high levels of immigration from Latin America. And two Florida cities, Gainesville and Tallahassee, are among the top 10 youngest cities in America, with median ages of 24 and 26 respectively. Florida's diversity is no myth -- but the idea that it is defined or even disproportionately dominated by AARP voters doesn't hold water.

John P. Avlon

2) Cuban-Americans are the Hispanic community: This stereotype goes back to the exodus of Cubans fleeing the tyrannical communist regime of Fidel Castro in 1960. To be sure, a vibrant, passionate and conservative community remains centered in Miami and the surrounding area. The Bay of Pigs Museum remains a staple on any Republican presidential candidate's trip to Miami.

But Cuban-Americans make up only 30% of the Hispanic population of Florida. Southern Florida has become the capital of Latin America, as wealthy families have realized it is the most stable nearby place to put their money and families. Among the Spanish-speaking population are large numbers of Dominicans, Mexicans, Venezuelans, Colombians and Puerto Ricans (who are not immigrants at all, but fellow Americans). Simply denouncing Castro won't be enough to win their votes. Fidel Castro recently weighed in on the GOP primary race and proclaimed it "in all seriousness, the greatest competition of idiocy and ignorance that has ever been" -- except for all the show trials, imprisonments and executions of his political rivals, of course.

Interestingly, despite Mitt Romney's attacks on fellow Republican candidates who support comprehensive immigration reform and the Dream Act, polls show that he is doing surprisingly well with the Hispanic vote this time around.

3) There is a typical Florida voter: Compared with the other states in the January primary ordeal -- Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina -- Florida is a complex array of 10 media markets, all with different characteristics. The northern part of the state, from the Panhandle to Jacksonville, is the deep South, a continuum of adjoining Georgia and Alabama. The I-4 corridor, from the Space Coast to Orlando to Tampa/St. Pete, is largely made up of young families -- some native to Florida, but many others Midwest transplants looking for a new start. The tony southeast coast of West Palm Beach is a wealthy enclave with many snowbirds from the Northeast. Miami and the southern tip make up the capital of Latin America.

And Key West is the Caribbean. All of which means it is expensive to run statewide in Florida -- and the messaging is complex. It must appeal to more of a series of nation-states than a state with a homogenized character. It is, to that extent, the best test of a candidate's ability to connect in a national campaign to date in the primary calendar. It is a red state, a blue state and a swing state -- all rolled into one.

Follow @CNNOpinion on Twitter.

Join the conversation on Facebook.

The opinions in this commentary are solely those of John Avlon.

Share this on:

Facebook Twitter Digg delicious reddit MySpace StumbleUpon LinkedIn

It's not your grandpa's Florida - CNN.com

The Patzcuaro Fair – One of the drawbacks in living here!

Normally we go on vacation between November and December because the fair circus rides setup on back of us. The Ferris wheel and other huge rides look down into our home. The noise and lights from the rides shatter our usually placid lives. This year to add to the sometime aggravation of living in Patzcuaro, our street  had a major redo. We couldn’t get into our parking for close to four months! Leaving for our vacation in a much warmer Zihuatanejo we could see rides being setup. They should be ready to tear them down by the time we got back. In Zihuatanejo we heard that the fair was different this time. Rides were set up away from residences, and there were no loud crowds. And the noise level was somewhat tolerable. The fair was not well attended and may have lost money. When we got home the rides still up but hardly anyone was on them. They stayed well past their customary time, and even beyond. A few rides and trailers housing rides’ employees remain behind.

View Full Album

 

I felt a bit sad for the owners and employees of the carnival rides. I did not miss the noise and problems caused by them. They surely could not have made a profit! And it was cold! I could see some of the circus families living in a tent without any apparent way of staying warm.

I don’t see them returning next year to witness the same conditions. I just hope that they relocate them to a better environment.