Mike Huckabee organized yesterday’s Chick-fil-A “Customer Appreciation Day” (also known as the National Day of Intolerance) to show support for the company’s anti-gay marriage stance and millions of dollars in donations to hate groups. Here’s his message to the faithful:
There are a lot of differences between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney, but this one really stands out (click the image to resize):
What you do with your talents says a lot about who you are as a person. There’s nothing wrong with going into business. Indeed, creating a small business from the ground up is not only admirable, challenging and risky, it also provides jobs for people. But when you make money by destroying companies, jobs and communities, it is hard to make the case that you have the skill set to make a good president.
Mayors, governors and Congressmen are often condemned for supporting policies that personally benefit themselves. These conflict of interests in policy will often lead to electoral defeat and possibly criminal prosecution for corruption. It’s very rare that a president is leveled with that kind of criticism, even though they are in charge of implementing and executing the nation’s laws.
As it turns out, Mitt Romney is in one of those few instances where a president or presidential candidate is pushing for policies that would lead to personal enrichment. An analysis reported by the Detroit Free Press shows that Mitt Romney would save an astonishing $5 million if his tax policies were implemented instead of President Obama’s:
Obama’s plan would hit couples making more than $250,000 per year from several directions, raising their tax rate, dunning them more for investment income, and limiting their tax deductions. People like Romney with earnings from private equity management would lose a big tax break. And Obama would establish a rule, named after billionaire Warren Buffett, to ensure that households taking in more than $1 million a year pay at least 30 percent in taxes.
It gets a lot worse. Romney’s tax plan calls for cutting everyone’s tax rate by 20 percent. While that may seem fair on the surface, the practical application means that the top 1% will have a much more sizable cut than the rest of taxpayers. The wealthy would see their rates fall from 35 percent to 28 percent under Romney. Meanwhile, the lowest tax bracket would only fall from 10 percent to 8 percent. That might mean a few hundred extra dollars for a person near poverty, but the corporate CEO on Wall Street will literally save millions — not to mention the enormous amounts of debt it would take to pay for these tax cuts that benefit mainly the super rich.
