Daily Show co-creator mocks Komen charity’s Karen Handel is the headline on this Raw Story article about the interview from Current TV.

Lizz Winstead, co-creator of The Daily Show, on Wednesday mocked Karen Handel of the Susan G. Komen for the Cure after the charity cut off all grants to Planned Parenthood.

I think the Komen Foundation will soon find out which of the two organizations people really support. Komen won’t be the winner.

MoveOn has revealed the truth about this withdrawal of funding, Susan G. Komen’s VP Indicates Her Real Motives In Awful Twitter Retweet.

Karen Handel, a former GOP candidate who ran on a pro-life platform, shows her true colors. She just happens to be Susan G. Komen’s Vice President of Public Policy now.

Ecuador Creating Alternative to Neo-Liberal Model is an interview from The Real News.

Jayati Ghosh: Ecuador raising taxes on wealthy, higher royalties on oil companies and making large social investments
.
.
.
Dr. Jayati Ghosh is Professor of Economics and currently also Chairperson at the Centre for Economic Studies and Planning, School of Social Sciences, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi. Educated at Delhi University, Jawaharlal Nehru University and the University of Cambridge, England, her research interests include globalization, international trade and finance, employment patterns in developing countries, macroeconomic policy, and issues related to gender and development.

What is interesting about Equador is the chance to learn from their experiment. If only the U.S. would keep its grubby paws off of Equador.

I still don’t know why the model that they are eschewing is called Neo-Liberal, I think it is just plain Non-Liberal.

The Atlantic article, Have Democrats Succeeded in Pre-Destroying Romney?, has the teaser,

Inside the left’s little-noticed, relentless, brutally effective campaign to tear down the Republican front-runner in advance of the general election.

Further down in the article is the quote,

“The key date for us is in November,” he said. “What we’re doing is educating the community to the positions that this candidate, Mitt Romney, was taking as he sought our votes. Mitt Romney’s going to find this little anchor placed around his neck getting heavier and heavier.”

Here is a video referenced in the article,

I am just disappointed that, as a Democrat, nobody told me about this wonderful plan. I have been telling a certain Senatorial campaign that they need to be educating the public, and all I get is flak for making my comments.

Mitt Romney payed less than 15% on his REPORTED income. What if his REPORTED income is actually far less than his real income, and it is all legal?

When Romney donates an appreciated asset to charity, he gets to deduct the full value from his income in the calculation of his net income. That means he gets to deduct what he paid for the asset plus whatever capital gain has occurred while he owned it.

He is not required to declare the appreciation in the asset as income and he has never paid taxes on that appreciation. However, he is allowed to use that appreciation to cut his taxes on his REPORTED income.

In other words, he has far more income than he is legally required to REPORT, and he gets to use that unreported, untaxed income to cut his taxes on his reported income. This is in effect a negative tax rate. The more the asset appreciates (the more he earns) the less he pays in taxes.

So not only does he tell you about his unfair lower tax rate than the tax rate paid by the ordinary, middle-class tax payer, he also has to report far less of his income than does the ordinary, middle-class taxpayer. Even Warren Buffet, who tells you it is unfair that he pays a lower tax rate than his secretary does, doesn’t tell you the full story of how much less he pays.

This is just another trick played on the middle-class by the very wealthy. You can use this trick too, but I am not sure if any of my readers can make millions of dollars a year, year after year, using this trick.

What do you think of a candidate who uses these tricks and yet pretends to the voters that they do not exist and that he doesn’t know about them?

The middle-class voter knows that she or he is being ripped off, but they don’t know the half of it. Would they appreciate a candidate that told them about the half they don’t know?

This is the same issue I mentioned in Comparing Taxes Paid By Past Presidents and Presidential Candidates. The facts about how to use this tax trick are documented in Donate Appreciated Assets.

I repost this because I think this way of stating it has far more impact than the description in my previous post. The headline is more catchy, too.

If you don’t listen to this interview with Marisa DeFranco, you won’t know what you are missing for a candidate for U.S. Senate. Yes, you think you are perfectly happy with Elizabeth Warren. What if there were a better candidate, but you refused to listen? How would you feel if you found out later that you got second best?

In the interview below, you have to go through a couple of minutes of talk before Marisa DeFranco comes on. Please don’t let this deter you.

The interview will actually start faster if you click on this fast start link than if you click the play button in the fancy graphic below.

Candidate for U.S. Senate from Massachusetts, Marisa DeFranco, is still fighting. The Dem field quickly winnowed with the sudden fame and fund-raising success of Elizabeth Warren, but not Defranco. She’s a solid progressive and an activist immigration attorney. Expect to see her going head to head in the race toward the Dem primary. She updates her on her campaign.