Rick Santorum says farewell – and the real battle for the presidency begins

Rick Santorum says farewell – and the real battle for the presidency begins | World news | guardian.co.uk

Rick Santorum bows to the inevitable and quits Republican presidential race

Rick Santorum bows to the inevitable and quits Republican presidential race | World news | guardian.co.uk
- Santorum declares at event in Gettysburg: 'Race is over for me'
- Vows to continue fight for social conservatives
- Romney to face Barack Obama for White House in November

Best joke so far ...

"A conservative, a liberal and a moderate walk into a bar. The bartender says, 'Hi, Mitt.'"

Ron Paul quietly amassing an army of delegates while GOP frontrunners spar

Paul's tightly-organised campaign is racking up delegates even in states where he did poorly in the popular vote. It's all part of a complex system that could make Paul the election kingmake
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/feb/23/ron-paul-amasses-delegates-republican-election

Why Mitt Romney is 'not concerned' about the poor

Given the recent (and ongoing) crisis of the western economic model, and the untold hardship for many, then I think wealth, and candidates attitudes to it, are an important topic for our times. It should be said that since Romney is under the spotlight at the moment, of course most articles will be about him, and I will try to seekout post and highlight any similar articles about the other candidates, and Obama.

It's not just that all politicians  are wealthy, it's what their worldview of wealth, and how it should be distributed that matters, since it will set the tone for how society progresses (and letting the market decide returns is just as much a mechanism of re-"distribution", a transfer of wealth from one bunch of people to another, as taxation is).

And several elements in the following article are (even if taken as they are here in isolation) I think particularly worrying about Romney (extracts below).

Why Mitt Romney is 'not concerned' about the poor
The Republican frontrunner rejects the politics of 'envy'. How convenient for the multimillionaire candidate of the 1%
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2012/feb/02/mitt-romney-not-concerned-about-poor

On the one hand he doesn't think the 'poor' are a group worth being focused on, despite this being an ever increasing section of US society, nor does he think there is anything wrong with siding with the 99% against the 1% who disproprotionately benefit from the current system, claiming, without any irony, that the mere thought of it is against the US ideal of 'one nation under God'. Maybe he means the '1% nation under God'.

Extracts : 

• According to the most recent figures available from the US Census Bureau, 46.2 million people lived in poverty in 2010, 15.1% of the population, the largest number in the 52 years the poverty estimates have been published. 2010 marked the fourth consecutive annual increase in the number of people in poverty

•  We will hear from the Democrat[ic] party the plight of the poor, and there's no question, it's not good being poor," he told CNN's Soledad O'Brien. "You could choose where to focus, you could focus on the rich, that's not my focus. You could focus on the very poor, that's not my focus. My focus is on middle-income Americans."

• Romney, in his victory speech in New Hampshire, said:

"This country already has a leader who divides us with the bitter politics of envy. We must offer an alternative vision. I stand ready to lead us down a different path, where we are lifted up by our desire to succeed, not dragged down by a resentment of success … We are one nation under God."

• The next morning, NBC's Matt Lauer challenged him, asking:

"Did you suggest that anyone who questions the policies and practices of Wall Street and financial institutions, anyone who has questions about the distribution of wealth and power in this country, is envious? Is it about jealousy, or fairness?"

• Romney doubled down, claiming:

"I think it's about envy. I think it's about class warfare. When you have a president encouraging the idea of dividing America based on the 99% versus 1% – and those people who have been most successful will be in the 1% … [it's] entirely inconsistent with the concept of one nation under God."

Let's talk about tax

If there's one practical area in which I most disagree with the Republican candidates, it's when it comes to tax. While taxes need to be justified, and wasteful taxing is one of the worst things governments can do, since they impose pain on their citizens unnecessarily, being anti-taxes per se while not being an outright anarchist is as meaningless and nonsensical as being against money itself. Taxes are part of the system of having a government, and whatever romantic individualistic ideas one might have of having 'small government' not even the most extreme would take it so far as having no government, and the same applies to taxes : they should be used as needed, just as government should govern as needed, and at different times this might mean to a greater or lesser extent.

I've already written about this with respect to the Gorver Norquist pledge that all candidates have signed up to , but this article  , while being obviously pro-Obama, does make some extra interesting points on the current tax system in America, which makes a lot of the rhetoric from the Republican candidates even more meaningless. The article claims :

- only in last 30 years taxes have decreased nothing new to have high taxes, and indeed maybe some of America's best eras (for everyone) were high tax periods
- taxes are lower under Obama than in Bush years, tax revenue is lowest in 60 years (though this is of course partly due to the economy slowing), yet still Obama often seen as a tax raiser (maybe even if acknowledge this these people would say he might not have raised, but he wants to, which given he's been in power 4 years is pushing it)
- For all their obsession with fiscal responsibility the Repubicans finally torpedoed plan which could have balanced the budget (though I am assuming this article is correct about this since don't have the details myself)
- Romney's current tax plan (link here) would mean less for those making more than $1m a year and tax rises for those under $40,000. Apart from the unfairness of this, it also doesn't make economic sense. While tax cuts for job creation is a worthy reason, rich peoples spending on the sort of goods which get an economy moving is obviously much less influenced by minor fluctuations than the average earner. A $100,000 here are there is not going to stop a millionaire buying a car, or a TV, but a $1000 for the average worker might mean actual purchases skipped.

Benjamin Franklin was right when he said there was nothing certain in life but death and taxes. To live well we need society, and to have society we need government, and that government needs to be funding. Claiming that taxes should categorically never go up regardless of the circumstances is just utter nonsense, and highly iresonsible, and not just fiscally.

The point is tax needs to be discussed, reasonably. Maybe people pay too much, maybe they pay too little, but pay we must

Guide to the super PACs...

PAC men...
http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/superpacs.php?cycle=2012
current top 8 by expenditure:

Group	Supports/Opposes	Independent Expenditures	Viewpoint	Total Raised
Restore Our Future	supports Romney	$7,795,104	Conservative	$12,231,700
Winning Our Future	supports Gingrich	$4,204,685	Conservative	$0
Make Us Great Again	supports Perry	$3,793,524	Conservative	$0
Our Destiny PAC	supports Huntsman	$2,453,204	Conservative	$0
Endorse Liberty	supports Paul	$1,165,542	Conservative	$0
House Majority PAC		$1,105,843	Liberal	$2,110,000
American Crossroads		$1,064,223	Conservative	$6,679,887
Red, White and Blue	supports Santorum	$727,200	Conservative	$0