VIDEO: Paul Ryan's 'Legitimate' Problem
Paul Ryan and Todd Akin are one and the same in limiting access to abortion -- even in cases of…
Paul Ryan Failed To Disclose Investments On Ethics Forms
Vice-presidential candidate Rep. Paul Ryan's tax returns contained investments he failed to disclose on his Congressional financial disclosures. His tax returns reveal the amount of profit or loss, but we still don't know the value of the underlying investment.
Ryan’s Tax Returns Reported Investment In TLS Partners LLC – But Did Not Disclose It In Personal Financial Disclose Forms
Ryan Did Not Disclose Any Stake In TLS Partners In His Personal Financial| Year | Investment Name | Income Profit |
| 2011 | TLS Partners, LLC |
-$75 |
| 2010 | TLS Partners, LLC |
-$103 |
| Total: |
-$178 |
|
Ryan’s Tax Returns Reported Investment In Oil And Natural Gas Exploration Business, LongFellow Energy LP – But Did Not Disclose It In Personal Financial Disclosure Forms
Ryan Did Not Disclose Any Stake In Longfellow Energy LP In His Congressional Personal | Year | Investment Name | Income Profit |
| 2011 | Longfellow Energy, LP |
$6 |
| 2010 | Longfellow Energy, LP |
$158 |
| Total: |
$164 |
|
Ryan Failed to Disclose Role with Family Real Estate Partnership
Ryan Did Not List Position With Ryan Family Real Estate Limited Partnership On Congressional FinancialDEBATE PREP: American Bridge Releases 25 Issue Briefs on Romney’s Record
American Bridge today released 25 policy-based research briefings laying out the truth about Gov. Mitt Romney’s record. Romney recently expressed his concern that President Obama will “say things that aren’t true” in their upcoming debate. It takes some brass for Mitt to make that statement, considering his own history of mendacity.
American Bridge's Questions For Mitt Romney
This year, American Bridge was hoping we’d get the call to host one of the presidential debates. Unfortunately, though admittedly unsurprisingly, that wasn’t the case. While we’re still holding out hope that Candy Crowley will use our best “this or that” submission, these are the questions we would have asked Mitt Wednesday night. (And be sure to click through to our Bridge Briefs to see the answers Mitt wouldn’t have given.) 1) Studies indicate your plan to block grant Medicaid would result in 14-27 million people losing health care insurance, half of them children. Do you think the American people would prefer health care for children or tax cuts for millionaires? 2) What did you mean when you said immigrants come here “looking for a free deal?” Would you veto legislation that offers a path to citizenship for individuals brought here as children and who have proven their commitment to American ideals by completing college or serving in the US military? 3) What did you mean when you said you were open to private sector competition in veterans’ health care? 4) Why would a Romney presidency be different than a Romney governorship, when Massachusetts lagged behind other states in job creation, ranking 47th out of 50? 5) As governor, why did you veto funding for breast and cervical cancer treatment and prevention? 6) Twice in the last 15 years - when the tech bubble burst and the recent Wall Street crisis - many people lost everything they had in the stock market. Do you still support private accounts for Social Security that would subject people’s savings to those fluctuations, and what would you propose so that people who did lose everything didn’t starve? 7) What specific tax breaks and loopholes would you eliminate to make your tax cuts for the wealthy revenue-neutral, and would these be applied to middle- and working-class families? See more questions after the jump.
BRIDGE BRIEFING: Romney And LGBT Issues
Romney Promised Not To Fight Against Same Sex Marriage But Did Anyway
In 2002, Romney Told Log Cabin Republicans He Would Not “Champion” A Fight Against The Massachusetts Ruling On Same Sex Marriage. According to the New York Times, “Mitt Romney seemed comfortable as a group of gay Republicans quizzed him over breakfast one morning in 2002. Running for governor of Massachusetts, he was at a gay bar in Boston to court members of Log Cabin Republicans. Mr. Romney explained to the group that his perspective on gay rights had been largely shaped by his experience in the private sector, where, he said, discrimination was frowned upon. When the discussion turned to a court case on same-sex marriage that was then wending its way through the state’s judicial system, he said he believed that marriage should be limited to the union of a man and a woman. But, according to several people present, he promised to obey the courts’ ultimate ruling and not champion a fight on either side of the issue. ‘I’ll keep my head low,’ he said, making a bobbing motion with his head like a boxer, one participant recalled.” [New York Times, 9/8/07]- Romney’s Deputy Political Director Confirmed Romney Promised Log Cabin Republicans He Would Not Champion A Fight Against Same Sex Marriage. According to the New York Times, “Calling Mr. Romney a flip-flopper on gay rights would be overly simplistic, Mr. Spampinato said. But he conceded that his old boss had promised the Log Cabin members that he would not champion a fight against same-sex marriage. ‘It’s definitely a shift in political priorities and strategy,’ he said.[New York Times, 9/8/07]
BRIDGE BRIEFING: Mitt Romney On Osama bin Laden
Romney Said It Was “Not Worth Moving Heaven And Earth” To Capture Osama Bin Laden Because America Would See An “Insignificant” Increase In Safety After His Capture. In an interview with Liz Sidoti of The Associated Press, Romney said, “the country would be safer by only ‘a small percentage’ and would see ‘a very insignificant increase in safety’ if al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden was caught because another terrorist would rise to power. ‘It’s not worth moving heaven and earth spending billions of dollars just trying to catch one person,’ Romney said. Instead, he said he supports a broader strategy to defeat the Islamic jihad movement.” [The Associated Press, 4/26/07] Romney Attacked Obama For Promising Unilateral Action Against Al Qaeda Targets in Pakistan. Accoridng to Retuers, “Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney criticized Democrat Barack Obama on Friday for vowing to strike al Qaeda targets inside Pakistan if necessary as the Obama camp issued a strident defense of his plan. What had been an internecine foreign policy battle between rival Democrats Obama, an Illinois senator, and New York Sen. Hillary Clinton, spilled into the Republican arena in the heavily contested state of Iowa. ‘I do not concur in the words of Barack Obama in a plan to enter an ally of ours... I don’t think those kinds of comments help in this effort to draw more friends to our effort,’ Romney told reporters on the campaign trail. Obama on Wednesday said if elected president in November 2008 he would be willing to launch military strikes against al Qaeda targets inside Pakistan with or without the approval of the Pakistani government of President Pervez Musharraf. ‘If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won’t act, we will,’ Obama said.” [Reuters, 8/4/07] Romney Said Using U.S. Troops In Pakistan Was Not “Civilized.” According to the Associated Press, “Romney spoke at a luncheon meeting of young Republicans in Des Moines and later with reporters who asked for his reaction to Obama’s comments. In a speech this week, the senator from Illinois issued a warning to Pakistani leaders that if they didn’t do a better job of rooting out terrorists who use that country as a sanctuary, the U.S. might intervene with force. Instead of issuing threats, the U.S. should work with nations to root out extremist forces which may exist, Romney said. ‘We want as a civilized world to participate with other nations in this civilized effort to help those nations reject the extreme within them,’ Romney said. ‘That doesn’t mean that our troops are going to go all over the world.’” [Associated Press, 8/3/07]
BRIDGE BRIEFING: The Truth About Mitt Romney's Defense Cuts Claim
Mitt Romney Wrote That One Of The Agendas For A Free And Strong America Was To “Add At Least 100,000 Troops To Our Ground Forces…” In his book “No Apology” Mitt Romney wrote that one of the agendas for a free and strong America was to “Add at least 100,000 troops to our ground forces; provide top quality care and benefits to our veterans.” [“No Apology” 2011 Pg. 320] Mitt Romney Wrote That One Of The Agendas For A Free And Strong America Was To “Return Our Navy And Air Force To The Levels Needed To Meet Their Respective Missions.” In his book “No Apology” Mitt Romney wrote that one of the agendas for a free and strong America was to “Return our navy and air force to the levels needed to meet their respective missions.” [“No Apology” 2011 Pg. 320] In 2007, Romney Ran A Campaign Ad Promising To Increase The Military By 100,000. According to First Read, the TV ad ran in Iowa and Romney said, “It’s this century’s nightmare, Jihadism - violent, radical Islamic fundamentalism. Their goal is to unite the world under a single Jihadist caliphate. To do that, they must collapse freedom-loving nations like us. As President, I’ll strengthen our intelligence services. Increase our military by at least 100,000. And monitor the calls Al-Qaeda makes into America. And we can and will stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.” [First Read, 10/12/07] In 2007 Romney Wrote That He Supports Increasing The Military By 100,000 Troops. Romney wrote, “First, we need to increase our investment in national defense. This means adding at least 100,000 troops and making a long-overdue investment in equipment, armament, weapons systems, and strategic defense.” [Foreign Affairs, July/August 2007]
BRIDGE BRIEFING: The Truth About Massachusetts's Bond Rating Increase
Romney Increased Massachusetts’s Bond Rating Through “Tax Increases And The Closing Of Tax Loopholes.” According to the Wall Street Journal, “Former Gov. Mitt Romney boasted this week that when he led Massachusetts, he presided over an increase in the state’s bond rating, a contrast to President Barack Obama, who saw Standard & Poor’s downgrade U.S. debt. But Mr. Romney had an advantage that Mr. Obama sorely wanted but could not get from Congress: tax increases and the closing of tax ‘loopholes.’ Documents obtained by The Wall Street Journal Wednesday through the Freedom of Information Act show the Romney administration’s pitch to S&P in late 2004 included the boast that ‘The Commonwealth acted decisively to address the fiscal crisis’ that ensued after the terrorist attacks of 2001. Bulleted PowerPoint slides laid out the actions taken, including legislation in July 2002 to increase tax revenue by $1.1 billion to $1.2 billion in fiscal 2003 and $1.5 billion to $1.6 billion in fiscal 2004; tax ‘loophole’ legislation that added $269 million in ‘additional recurring revenue,’ and tax amnesty legislation that added $174 million. The final bullet: ‘FY04 budget increased fees to raise $271 million yearly.’” [The Wall Street Journal, 8/10/11]
BRIDGE BRIEFING: Romney And Social Security
Romney Said That Social Security Must Be Reformed By Gradually Raising The Retirement Age And By Using Progressive Indexing. According to the Concord Monitor, “But he said Social Security must be reformed for future recipients who are in their early 50s and younger. Romney offered two ideas: gradually raising the qualifying retirement age and using progressive indexing, which slows the increase in benefit levels for high earners by tying the increase to the price index, rather than the quicker-growing wage index now in use.” [The Concord Monitor, 8/16/11] Romney Proposed Gradually Raising Retirement Age Based On “Increases In Longevity.” According to Romney’s Plan to Turn Around the Federal Government, “Gradually raise the retirement age to reflect increases in longevity.” [Romney’s Plan to Turn Around the Federal Government, 11/4/11]
BRIDGE BRIEFING: Romney And Medicare
Wall Street Journal: Romney’s Proposal Would Privatize Medicare. According to the Wall Street Journal, “Mitt Romney waded into the hot-button issue of Medicare, proposing to offer future seniors a choice between the current fee-for-service health plan or a voucher to purchase health insurance plans offered by private insurance companies. The Romney Medicare plan could become a hallmark of the 2012 presidential campaign should he win the Republican nomination. Democrats had already planned to make the Ryan plan a centerpiece of their efforts to unseat Republicans in Congress. Now, Mr. Romney has thrust Medicare privatization into the presidential race.” [Wall Street Journal, 11/4/11] Associated Press: Romney’s Plan Would “Fundamentally Re-Shape Medicare.” According to the Associated Press, “Mitt Romney on Friday unveiled a plan to fundamentally re-shape Medicare, tackling one of the 2012 presidential contest’s most delicate issues before a skeptical crowd of tea party activists. To cut costs, the Republican presidential hopeful and former Massachusetts governor would introduce vouchers, or ‘premium supports,’ to future recipients of the popular health insurance program for the elderly.” [Associated Press, 11/4/11] Kaiser Health News: Romney’s Medicare Plan “Would Fundamentally Change The Nature Of The Popular Program” According to Kaiser Health News, “Mitt Romney’s plan to overhaul Medicare follows a familiar Republican prescription: Use the power of the marketplace to bring down costs and improve care. Yet, such a move would fundamentally change the nature of the popular program, and treads close to a proposal that Republicans were heavily criticized for earlier this year.” [Kaiser Health News, 11/8/11]