Tenaj's Blog

Page 10 of 24

Romney Unleashes Unstable Sununu Birther-Attack

Pitbull Sununu bit too deep into the bone

What was John Sununu smoking when he unleashed a vicious race-based attack against President Obama on behalf of Mitt Romney?

Referring to President Barack Obama and his alleged hostility to free enterprise, Sununu observed: "He has no idea how the American system functions" because during Obama's early years "he was in Hawaii smoking something." 
 
After this low-class personal attack, Sununu added, of Obama: "And I wish this President would learn how to be American." Mitt Romney himself, at a campaign appearance claimed Obama also was hostile towards free enterprise because his attitude towards private business "is foreign." 
 
Romney and Sununu were both following Rush Limbaugh's earlier tirade on his radio show, where he had advised Romney to declare that while he was building successful businesses, Obama was at Columbia University smoking pot and imbibing socialist and Marxist inclinations. 
 
Very curios strategy for attacking Obama, who wrote about his drug use in his own book, considering that Limbaugh is a recovering drug addict. Limbaugh had long declared in December 2008, soon after Obama's victory, before he had been sworn in: "I hope this President fails." 
 
Limbaugh runs the Republican party, so Romney and Sununu obeyed his command and went all out resorting to a not-so-subtle version of the Obama-is-Kenyan slur, also promoted by Donald Trump. President Obama's father was Kenyan. 
 
Why is Romney so desperate? It's only July and there's a long march to November. Romney has been shaken by questions about his reluctance to release his tax returns beyond the two years he's already done. Why else would he unleash an unstable man --judging by his preposterous personal attacks on Obama-- like Sununu on national television? 
 
Romney was hoping that the "Kenyan" card would divert attention away from the corner he's boxed himself into over Bain Capital and his tax returns. On Bain, Romney hasn't been able to deflect attacks from the Obama campaign that his firm advised companies that laid off workers or shipped jobs overseas while he and his partners made tens of millions each. 
 
His patriotism has also been questioned by the revelations that he parked some of his wealth in Swiss accounts, in the Cayman Islands, and in Bermuda. 
 
And Romney's biggest and most crippling challenge so far has been his reluctance to disclose tax returns beyond the two years he has committed to. His own father, George Romney, who once tried to run for the Republican Presidential nomination in the 1960s, had released 12 years worth of tax returns. 
 
Now the loudest demands for Romney to provide more figures comes from Republicans, including columnist George Will, and his earlier opponents for the nomination, Rick Perry and Ron Paul. During the primaries Newt Gingrich had also demanded that Romney disclose anything in his returns that could cause Republicans to lose to Obama. The National Review, considered to be the bible of some conservatives, has also demanded in a commentary that Romney follow his father's example. 
 
Now surveys show that 56% of all voters, and 61% of independent voters, who are the most critical block, want Romney to provide 12 years of returns. 
 
That Romney could be convinced to believe that Rush Limbaugh's Obama-is-a-Kenyan-pot head strategy could actually deflect attention away from questions about Bain Capital and his tax returns and eventually win the White House speaks volumes about Romney's own political intelligence, or lack thereof. 
 
And, ironically, with his angry drunkard-like tirade, Sununu may have unwittingly invited scrutiny into his own background. Some die-hard Tea Party supporters may not be comfortable. 
 
Consider Sununu's own pedigree:  He is of Palestinian and Greek ancestry and was born in Havana, Cuba. His father's name was John Saleh Sununu. He is a naturalized American. Obama, the alleged "Kenyan," was actually born, not overseas, but in Hawaii, USA. 
 
Evidently Sununu never heard the saying: Those who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

Entry #216

Romney & Son Investigated for 8 Billion Ponzi Scheme

Romney & Son Investigated for 8 Billion Ponzi Scheme

Mitt Romney and his son Tagg Romney have been implicated in a 8.5 billion dollar ponzi scheme with Wall Street investors Allen Stanford and James M. Davis.

The pair are not cleared including their three partners in a court document verified, ongoing legal proceeding involving selling fraudulent CD’s to potential investors.

The statement of fact, includes SIBL, Stanford International Bank, SGC Stanford Capital Management and the associates R. Allen Stanford, ( Allen Stanford) and James M. Davis stole money from investors through fraud. The group bilked investors by diverting funds to their own lifestyles through bonus money, salaries and compensation packages.

The Stanford Financial Group now in receivership headed by Allen Stanford sold investments  described as a “well-diversified portfolio”. Instead Stanford diverted the money to finance his own lavish lifestyle which include: jet planes, yacht, pleasure crafts, luxury cars, homes, travel on a company credit card.

Tagg Romney

Allen Stanford, James M. Davis and Laura Pendergest-Holt  through SIBL (the bank) Stanford International Bank) hid the fraud by continuing to buy CD’s (Certificate of Deposit) and fabricated the performance of their investments. (More court documents: http://www.stanfordfinancialreceivership.com/documents/310-cv-1002_001_Complaint_Against_Certain_Stanford_Investors_and_Appendix.pdf  More information on the legal procedures: HERE  A court date was set for January 23, 2012 but according to various reports Allen Stanford is incompetent to stand trial. 

Mitt Romney and Son Tagg in 2008 invested in Allen Stanford’s ponzi scheme to the tune of 10 million dollars initially in Solamere Capital a seed investment and received 1 million in returns. Tagg Romney joined in to help Solamere Capital located in Charlotte, North Carolina with three other prominent brokers.

 

Tagg Romney is quoted as saying he was proud of his investment with Solamere now run by former executives of Stanford, ” They’re friends of ours, they used the Solamere name, we own a piece of them”. “We helped them get started”

Despite claims by Tagg and Mitt Romney the investigation is still “ongoing” and the profits from Stanford and Solemere were unreported by Tagg Romney. He also did possess a minority stake in the business with Spencer Zwick and Eric Scheuermann.

Spencer Zwich is Mitt Romney’s Chief Fundraiser. Investors in Stanford have not recovered their money, and the assets are still in receivership and frozen until the case is resolved. A total of 8.5 billion dollars is still unaccounted for and the billion dollar Ponzi scheme lays at Mitt Romney’s feet for his and his son’s investment partners who were all involved.

Curated News

 

ABC News Politics – Romney Camp Dismissive of Ponzi Accusation

“But according to Think Progress, Tagg Romney’s account isn’t entirely accurate: “According to documents reviewed by ThinkProgess using the Pacer search engine, charges against Tim Bambauer, Deems May, and Brandon Phillips have not been dropped. A recent court filing shows May requesting the court for arbitration instead of going to trial.

ThinkProgress also spoke to the deputy clerk for the federal District Court in Dallas, and confirmed that the three men are still defendants in the lawsuit to recover the Ponzi scheme money.”

Huffington Post -Tagg Romney Partnered Family Investment Group with Employees Behind Alleged Ponzi Scheme

Crooks and Liars - Mitt Romney Entwined with Players in Stanford Ponzi Scheme



Read more: http://www.politicolnews.com/romney-son-investigated-for-8-billion-ponzi-scheme/#ixzz21JoCxDc9

3 Comments (Locked)
Entry #215

Is Mitt Romney still running?

Thursday, July 19, 2012 at 9:05pm

By Michael R. Burch

Is Mitt Romney still in the running? While at the moment the presidential race seems to be neck-and-neck, I think Romney may have just pulled up lame. Meanwhile, the Democrats have trotted out their political thoroughbred, Bill Clinton, who seems to be kicking up his heels and feeling frisky.

Here’s what Clinton said on NBC’s Today show about Romney’s tax returns: “I am a little surprised he only released a year’s worth of tax returns. That kind of perplexed me, because this is the first time in, I don’t know, more than 30 years that anybody running for president has only done that. You know, it’s typical we all release 10, 11 years; I think Senator McCain released over 20 years of tax returns.” And of course Romney’s father set the national precedent by voluntarily releasing 12 years of tax returns when he ran for president in 1968.

Here’s the real stunner. On the morning of July 12, speaking on the Senate floor, Majority Leader Harry Reid made this remarkable statement: “His father, George Romney, set the precedent that people running for president would file their tax returns, let everybody look at them, but Mitt Romney can’t do that because he’s basically paid no taxes in the prior 12 years.”

How could Reid know if Romney failed to pay taxes for 12 years? One possibility is that the word leaked out after Romney disclosed 23 years of returns to John McCain, when Romney was under consideration to be McCain’s running mate. If that’s true, this would explain why McCain chose Sarah Palin over Romney, and why Romney refuses to release more returns.

But Romney may now have bigger fish to fry than worrying about the presidency, such as staying out of jail if he illegally evaded taxes. While the evidence is not conclusive, due to the undisclosed returns, it seems Romney may have sheltered up to $100 million of his personal fortune in offshore “IRA” accounts, according to reputable news services like the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, TIME, Reuters, CBS News and Huffington Post. 

If what Romney did was on the up-and-up, he should just say, “Look, what I did was perfectly legal, but it is unfair to other American taxpayers, and we need to fix the unfair tax system and close the loopholes.” But by refusing to disclose his taxes, he gives the impression that he did something wrong and fears what would happen if he told the truth.

For example, an investment vehicle called the Sankaty High Yield Asset Investors Ltd. has been described in securities filings as a “Bermuda corporation wholly owned by W. Mitt Romney.” Romney transferred his wife’s newly created blind trust to Sankaty the day before he was sworn in as governor of Massachusetts. Sankaty’s director and president is R. Bradford Malt, Romney’s lawyer. Romney failed to list Sankaty on several financial disclosures, even though such a closely held vehicle would seemingly not qualify as an investment fund excepted from disclosures.

Sankaty, however, was only made public when Romney disclosed his 2010 tax return, after being pressured to do so during the debates. Having most or much of his wealth in offshore tax shelters could easily explain Romney’s fish-out-of-water act. Surely the American public has the right to know why a man running for president has offshore accounts that give every appearance of being part of a shell game to avoid U.S. income taxes. Is there any reason to create shell companies in Bermuda and the Cayman Islands, other than to avoid U.S. laws and taxes?

And there is good reason to question whether Romney’s “blind” trusts are really blind. One of the investments that Malt made with Romney’s “blind” trust was to put $10 million in Solamere, a company co-founded by Romney’s son Tagg and Romney’s campaign finance chair, Spencer Zwick. The Solamere investment strongly suggests that Romney’s “blind” trust is operating under Romney’s watchful eye. And if you don’t believe me, please consult an expert: in 1994, Mitt Romney explained that the “blind trust” is an “age old ruse!”

Is Romney electable? Joe Scarborough, one of TIME’s 100 most influential people in the world, recently said, “I have yet to meet anybody in the Republican establishment that worked for George W. Bush, that works in the Republican Congress, [or] that worked for Ronald Reagan that thinks Mitt Romney is going to win the general election.”

Michael R. Burch is a Nashville-based editor and publisher of Holocaust poetry and other “things literary” at www.thehypertexts.com.

 

4 Comments (Locked)
Entry #214

Is It Toast For Romney?: Lies and Deception

Emperor Romney II; nowhere to hide from "you people"

 

Presidential pretender Mitt Romney has been bobbing and weaving from allegations he’s hiding something from the American people by refusing to show his tax returns.

Is Mr. Romney’s refusal an admission that he’s engaging in lies and deception?

For the last week, Mr. Romney has been faced with unrelenting scrutiny regarding the lack of transparency relating to his tax returns. So far, the former Massachusetts governor has only turned over his tax returns for 2010—absent parts relating to foreign investments. Moreover, he is steadfastly refusing to hand over previous tax returns.

In fact, on Thursday, Mr. Romney—during an interview with the National Review—said this: “My tax returns that have already been released number into the hundreds of pages. And we will be releasing tax returns for the most current year as soon as those are prepared." And he add, "In the political environment that exists today, the opposition research of the Obama campaign is looking for anything they can use to distract from the failure of the president to reignite our economy. And I’m simply not enthusiastic about giving them hundreds or thousands of more pages to pick through, distort, and lie about.”

But many agree he must turn over more tax records to protect his credibility in his run for the presidency and silence the voices of those who feel he is hiding something from the American people. It’s a sentiment even some Republicans and conservatives are now echoing—especially, since, Mr. Romney insists he has nothing to hide.

Here’s what several of them had to say, regarding Romney’s tax return problem.

Former Republican Chairman Michael Steele said "If there's nothing there, there's no 'there' there, don't create a 'there.' Put out as much information as you can. Even if you don't release 12 years worth of tax returns, at least three, four, five."

Republican strategist and former Newt Gingrich advisor Rick Tyler said “Mitt Romney had an opportunity to answer these questions during the primary," and that "he did not answer these questions and now they're coming up again." Only Romney can provide that information or "we'll just have drip, drip, drip to November," he concludes.

Rep. Walter Jones (R-NC) said “"I think he should release his financial records and I think if he does it in July it would be a lot better than in October. He also added that, "whenever you are asking for the vote of the American people you need to fully disclose what your holdings are, if you have any."

Bill Kristol, conservative commentator and editor, said “He should release the tax returns tomorrow. This is crazy," and that "you've got to release 6, 8, 10 years of back tax returns. Take the hit for a day or two. Then give a serious speech.”

Commentator Matthew Dowd commented "There is obviously something because if there was nothing there he would say have it...But I think the bigger thing is, its arrogance. Many of these politicians think I can do this, I can get away with this." And legendary conservative thinker George Will had this to say: "The costs of not releasing the returns are clear, therefore he must have calculated that there are higher costs in releasing them." Mr. Will’s observation—followed by those of Mr. Dowd—is clearly, the most prescient point here. Indeed, what are these “higher costs” Mr. Romney “calculated” that made him decide not to release more of the tax returns?

Well, it’s obviously about the money isn’t it? Because, from the little we know, he has been paying a far less percent in taxes than many working Americans—the very people he claims he understands and can provide jobs for better than President Obama. Apparently, he knows his true tax returns would turn that notion upon its head.

For months, Mr. Romney has been maneuvering, spin doctoring and lying in his great ambition to become president. Now, the reality is: most American politicians have an aversion for the truth. Unfortunately, this is, partly, because American politics is corrupted by the influence of big money—a situation made worse by the Supreme Court’s wretched Citizen’s United Decision.

if there was a Pinocchio award for politicians, Mr. Romney’s mendacity would easily take first prize.  But instead of his nose growing, it’s Mr. Romney’s credibility that’s shrinking. How can anyone who wants to be president refuse to show such records? Aren’t these the very people who often wax eloquently about democracy? Doesn’t this make a mockery of the idea of full transparency?

Ever since Mr. Obama became the nation’s first Black president, many people who identify as Republicans and conservatives have continually raised questions about President Obama’s birth papers. For example, Romney supporter Donald Trump is still pushing the retrograde racist “Birther” conspiracy rant—about President Obama being a foreigner.

One has to wonder: why aren’t these same principled people hooting and hollering about Mr. Romney’s decision to conceal his financial papers? These people—we’ll get to Mr. Romney’s wife’s comments in a second—always find themselves in these kinds of hypocritical conundrums. If President Obama had to be treated like an illegal immigrant—just because of his Black skin—by being forced into an unprecedented presidential indignity, then why shouldn’t Mr. Romney show us his tax returns?

There seems no doubt Mr. Romney is worried about tax avoidance tricks, and the like, in his tax returns—as well as what they’ll reveal about his foreign investments. However, he, probably, also knows closer scrutiny will lead to more curiosity about his other financial dealings. There are other things the electorate might well want to know like: what is the extent of Mr. Romney’s off shore finances? How much assets does he have in tax shelters, tax havens and other things like these “blind trusts?”

The truth is: the answers to all those questions may well cause his presidential candidacy to implode. Think of it: aren’t Republicans and conservatives the ones always preaching about American exceptionalism within isolationist rhetoric?

Mr. Romney himself has, repeatedly, railed about “European-style socialism.” So, how can he then release financial forms that may link him with massive foreign investments in these same countries? That would definitely undercut his message to the American people and illustrate that he’s part of the greedy one percent—that the Occupy Wall Street Movement warns about.

And now we come to the comments of Mr. Dowd—and those of Mrs. Ann Romney. Mr. Dowd, correctly, talked about the “arrogance” of “many of these politicians.” On Thursday, Mrs. Romney said this: “We've given all [that] you people need to know and understand about our financial situation and about how we live our life.”

In other words, is the presumptive First Lady telling us to mind our <snip> business, as it relates to their finances? Her statement suggests the Romneys won’t comply with the request to turn over more tax returns. This surely seems like impetuous impudence from someone who expects the American people to give them the keys to the White House come November.

In the final analysis, Mr. Romney, by refusing to turn over his financial statements, is doing the same thing he’s has done in regard to serious policy matters: he’s telling us to trust him—even, while he hides pertinent facts. This is unacceptable for someone who expects to become president in November.

By Colin Benjamin
"Speaking Truth To Empower."

1 Comment (Locked)
Entry #213

Republicans bill to block changes to welfare reform

Republicans are moving to block the Obama administration from "unilaterally weakening" welfare rules, after the Department of Health and Human Services last week quietly notified states they may seek a waiver from the program's work requirements. 

House and Senate Republicans introduced a bill Wednesday to prohibit the administration from implementing its latest policy or approving any change that "waives compliance" with the program's work rules. 

They claimed the administration had "overstepped its bounds" while "eviscerating" planks from the 1996 bipartisan agreement on welfare reform. 

"Gutting welfare work requirements with the stroke of a pen and without congressional input is simply unacceptable and cannot be allowed to stand," Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, said in a statement. "Neither the Obama administration nor any administration should have the power to unilaterally change the law as it sees fit." 

The Department of Health and Human Services, though, is defending the change, claiming it was in response to states burdened by current rules and guidelines. 

HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius says the waivers won't get in the way of moving welfare recipients into jobs. She sent letters late Tuesday to Republican lawmakers who oppose the waiver plan, saying states will have to promise to move at least 20 percent more people from welfare to work and show "clear progress" within a year. Sebelius said GOP governors have long sought more flexibility from the administration.

In last week's policy directive, the department said states may seek a waiver from the work component of the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Program, in order to "test alternative and innovative strategies, policies and procedures that are designed to improve employment outcomes for needy families." 

HHS stressed that any alternative should still aim to get welfare recipients into gainful employment. Any plan that "appears substantially likely to reduce access to assistance or employment for needy families," will not be approved, the memo said. 

George Sheldon, acting assistant secretary for the Administration for Children and Families, said in a blog last week that states will be held "accountable" for their alternative plans. 

"The new steps we have taken will give states more flexibility in how they operate the Temporary Assistance to Need Families program. And the steps we have taken were specifically requested by states led by officials from both parties," he wrote. 

The hard-fought welfare reform agreement in 1996 was struck between the Bill Clinton administration and a Republican-led Congress. It is still considered a signature legislative achievement from that period. 

The Associated Press contributed to this report. 

2 Comments (Locked)
Entry #212

GOP blocks campaign donor disclosure bill

GOP blocks campaign donor disclosure bill

WASHINGTON - Senate Republicans have blocked Democratic-backed legislation requiring organizations pouring hundreds of millions of dollars into campaign ads to disclose their top donors and the amounts they spend.

GOP opposition prevented Democrats from getting the 60 votes needed to bring what is known as the Disclose Act to the Senate floor. The vote was 51-44.

Democrats revived the act during a presidential election campaign in which political action committees and nonprofit organizations, funded by deep-pocketed and largely anonymous contributors, are dominating the airwaves with largely negative political ads.

Another version of the Disclose Act passed the then-Democratic-controlled House in 2010 but was similarly blocked by Republicans in the Senate. Republicans cite First Amendment rights and say the bill favors unions in opposing the legislation.

Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky accused Democrats of wasting time on bills "they know won't pass but which give them a chance to make a fuss about a problem that doesn't exist and blow a kiss to the unions for good measure."

The bill, which would not have gone into effect until next January, would have required any organization that spends $10,000 or more during an election cycle to file a report within 24 hours identifying any donors who gave $10,000 or more. Current election law requires super political action committees, or PACS, to make periodic reports to the Federal Election Commission, but nonprofit groups, including social welfare organizations, labor unions and trade groups, generally do not have to reveal the sources of election-related spending.

"Perhaps Republicans want to shield the handful of billionaires willing to contribute nine figures to sway a close presidential election," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada. He said this election was in danger of being bought by "17 angry, old, white men."

The White House, in a statement, said the bill was needed so Americans would "know who is attempting to influence the nation's elections." Without the bill, it said, "corporations and wealthy individuals will continue to be able to shield their donations from disclosure."

Democrats have been pushing for more disclosure since the Supreme Court's 5-4 ruling in the 2010 Citizens United case that overturned a decades-old law barring corporations, unions and other organizations from spending on advertising and other forms of political activity.

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., said super PACS and other outside groups have spent some $150 million during this election cycle, double the amount spent during the same period in 2008. Election campaigns, he said, are "now waged by shadowy political attack groups posing as social welfare organizations."

The Sunlight Foundation watchdog group said Monday that Crossroads GPS, a conservative organization formed by Republican strategist Karl Rove, has announced ad buys so far totaling $83 million while Americans for Prosperity, another conservative group founded by brothers Charles and David Koch, have bought ads worth $32 billion.

Groups such as Crossroads GPS, are classified as social welfare organizations not subject to disclosure laws as long as they spend more than half their resources toward "social welfare" purposes. But that 50 percent can go for "public education" that can be highly political in nature.

Knowing they were facing defeat, Democratic supporters announced earlier in the day that they would hold a "midnight vigil," speeches going late into the evening on the need for greater campaign transparency. "We can't let the special interests off the hook after just one round," Whitehouse said.

Monday's vote was strictly along party lines except for Reid, who changed his vote to "no" in a procedural move that allows him to bring up the legislation again on Tuesday.

© 2012 The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Entry #211

GOP senators block top Obama jobs initiative

By Ted Barrett, CNN
updated 8:29 PM EDT, Thu July 19, 2012

 

Washington (CNN) -- Senate Republicans on Thursday blocked the No.1 item on the president's congressional "to-do-list," refusing to allow a vote on a bill that would give tax breaks for companies that "insource" jobs to the U.S. from overseas while eliminating tax deductions for companies that move jobs abroad.

In voting against the bill, Republicans raised both substantive and procedural problems with the measure. The bill fell four votes short of the 60 needed to bring it to debate, with 42 voting against it. Four GOP senators -- Scott Brown of Massachusetts, Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe of Maine and Dean Heller of Nevada -- voted in favor of the bill.

Obama: Romney will create jobs overseas

With job creation the top issue this campaign season, and outsourcing being blamed as a big contributor to the high unemployment rate, Democrats saw the bill as an election-year winner. Sponsored by Sen. Debbie Stabenow, D-Michigan, who is running for reelection, the bill made it to the top of the "to-do list" for Congress President Barack Obama unveiled earlier this year.

The Bring Jobs Home Act would provide a 20% tax break for the costs of moving jobs back to the United States and would rescind business expense deductions available to companies that are associated with the cost of moving operations overseas.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Kentucky, had warned Democrats before the vote that his party would want to amend the bill -- possibly with hot-button issues like repealing the health care reform law or extending the Bush-era tax cuts for all income levels.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada, responded that those amendments were not germane to the bill and he would not allow votes on them.

In addition, Republican aides called attention to opposition by business groups like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers, who generally support Republicans.

In a letter to senators this week, the Chamber of Commerce called the bill "misguided" and said it "would hamper American worldwide companies' competitiveness, increase complexity in the Internal Revenue Code, and threaten economic growth."

The Chamber said it would count how senators voted on this motion in their annual "How they Voted" scorecard.

Entry #210

Romney's higher ed overhaul in Mass. fizzled

Romney's higher ed overhaul in Mass. fizzled

Published - Jul 17 2012 02:02AM EST

ANDREW MIGA, Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) — Mitt Romney took over as Massachusetts governor in 2003 with a sweeping plan to overhaul the state's public college system to cut waste, reduce costs and boost efficiency.

"This is my opportunity to be bold," he said in announcing the plan.

But when Romney left office four years later, not a lot had changed. His strongest mark on higher education was for a merit scholarship program he championed for top high school students.

Romney's restructuring plan was stymied by a Democratic-run state Legislature where many lawmakers were irked about his bitter public feud with William Bulger, the University of Massachusetts president and one of the state's most powerful and entrenched Democrats. Romney had criticized Bulger's silence on his then-fugitive brother, a legendary Boston Irish-American mobster. Bulger ran the UMass system with an iron hand and had plenty of old pals in the Legislature eager to thwart Romney.

"The governor can play such an important role in higher education," says Phil Johnston, a member of the UMass board of trustees and a former state Democratic Party chairman. "The bottom line is that after his reorganization proposal collapsed, Romney pretty much forgot about higher ed, except for his fight with Bulger."

Romney's campaign declined requests for comment. Bulger, through a spokesman, also declined to comment.

Now the likely Republican presidential nominee, Romney hasn't said much on the campaign trail about his higher education proposals, so his record in Massachusetts could offer clues about his approach to the issue if he wins the White House.

The wealthy former businessman was mocked by Democrats for saying in March that financially strapped students should "shop around" for the best loans and affordable schools.

In a recent speech to the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, Romney touted how as governor he put in place the John and Abigail Adams Scholarship program providing four years of free tuition at any state college or university for Massachusetts high school students who score in the top quarter of their school district on state standardized tests. More than 18,000 students in the class of 2012 won scholarships, which for the 2011-12 academic year ranged from about $700 to $1,700.

Romney has called for simplifying the federal financial aid process and re-opening the federal student loan market to private lenders. He says President Barack Obama's increases in federal student aid such as Pell Grants have driven up college tuition rates.

Courting college students and young voters who are critical to his re-election, Obama has stressed college affordability. In a rare moment of solidarity, Romney sided with Obama on legislation the president signed this month to prevent interest rate increases on new loans to college students.

Back in 2003, Romney's higher education plan in Massachusetts was crafted with help from Romney's former business consultant colleagues at Bain and Co. It was part of his efforts to close a $3 billion state budget gap.

Romney called for dismantling the 59,000-student university system, spinning off the flagship Amherst campus, privatizing three schools and merging six campuses. He wanted to group campuses by regions to share administrative services and cut costs. He wanted to boost tuition by as much as 28 percent, while adding $44 million to financial aid.

Romney said his plan would save about $150 million overall.

Yet it was Romney's proposal to eliminate Bulger's job and his entire $14 million-a-year office as overseer of the university's five campuses — Romney called it an unnecessary layer of bureaucracy — that stirred the most controversy.

Bulger branded Romney's plan a "corporate takeover" by a wealthy former venture capitalist with scant understanding of public education.

Bulger had been president of the Massachusetts Senate for 17 years when he was appointed to the UMass post by Republican Gov. William Weld in 1996. To critics, Bulger symbolized the system's rampant cronyism. He ruled the Senate with a bullying style, brokering back-room deals while rewarding friends and punishing critics.

Bulger is a younger brother of James "Whitey" Bulger, who was among the FBI's most wanted fugitives while Romney was governor.

For years Whitey Bulger had fed the FBI information on his New England Mafia rivals and allegedly got away with murder and other brutal crimes while being protected by a corrupt FBI handler. Whitey Bulger disappeared in 1995. He was caught in Los Angeles a year ago and is awaiting federal trial for his alleged role in 19 murders.

In late 2002, William Bulger invoked his Fifth Amendment rights and refused to testify before a congressional committee probing the FBI's use of mob informants.

Romney fumed, calling Bulger's reluctance to testify "inappropriate." Bulger finally testified in 2003 after being granted immunity. But Romney said Bulger didn't cooperate enough with the investigation and called him unfit to lead UMass.

Bulger eventually stepped down amid public pressure. Romney never revived his stalled higher education plan.

Romney critics said his attacks on Bulger hurt UMass' reputation. But Republican political analyst Jim Nuzzo said the fight to shake Bulger's hold on UMass paved the way for future changes.

"Bulger symbolized old-style crony politics," Nuzzo said. "Bulger represented everything that had to be changed if we were going to see real change in higher education, and Romney knew that."

Democrats blame Romney for not working harder to lobby lawmakers for his plan, the way he did on his big health care overhaul that laid the groundwork for his 2008 presidential bid. Johnston said that lack of follow-through and attention to policy detail was a Romney trademark.

Republican governors before Romney had worked hard to win compromises with Democratic lawmakers, Johnston said.

"This business is all about relationships," Johnston said, "and he did not have many with the Legislature."

Entry #209

NC REPUBLICAN lawmaker charged with stealing from federal loan program

Raleigh, N.C. A federal grand jury on Tuesday indicted state Rep. Stephen LaRoque on charges that he misappropriated federal funding from nonprofits that he runs.

LaRoque, R-Lenoir, is charged with four counts of converting U.S. Department of Agriculture loans to East Carolina Development Co. to his own use and four counts of laundering money by using federal funds to purchase an interest in a Greenville ice rink and a house that he then rented to one of his stepdaughters.

ECDC and another Kinston-based nonprofit LaRoque oversees, Piedmont Development Co., provide low-interest loans to small businesses in rural areas.

LaRoque couldn't be reached for comment, but Raleigh attorney Joe Cheshire released a statement contending that the lawmaker has done nothing wrong and was "disappointed" by the indictment.

"Rep. LaRoque is proud of what he has accomplished with his nonprofit corporations. The corporations’ work provided monies that led to new business and led to hundreds of jobs for North Carolinians who would otherwise have been unemployed," Cheshire said in the statement.

The 72-page indictment details years of alleged insider dealings, noting that LaRoque, his brother and his wife sat on the nonprofits' boards and that they routinely approved without comment loans LaRoque had already made. One of the loans was to a carpet business owned by the woman who would later become his wife at an interest rate about half that charged to other borrowers, according to the indictment.

LaRoque has paid himself close to $2 million since 1998 for running the nonprofits, along with another $133,000 in reimbursed expenses, according to the indictment.

He routed ECDC money through his management company to purchase vehicles, jewelry and other goods, the indictment alleges.

LaRoque, 48, has previously defended his work at the two agencies against allegations of wrongdoing.

In 2010, he filed a defamation lawsuit against his Democratic opponent, who questioned the nonprofit operations. The indictment alleges that he used federal loan funds to pay his legal fees in the suit.

He then fired back at left-leaning publication NC Policy Watch, which sorted through records of the two nonprofits and alleged conflicts of interest in several stories.

LaRoque served as co-chairman of the powerful House Rules Committee in the recent legislative session, but he lost his re-election bid in the May primary.

Reporter: Cullen Browder

Entry #208

SC GOP voters focused on economy, beating Obama

SC GOP voters focused on economy, beating Obama

Published - Jan 21 2012 05:34PM EST

Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) — Early results of exit polls in South Carolina show that for most voters, the economy was the top issue when picking a Republican presidential candidate.

Around a third of them said Saturday that someone in their household has been laid off in the last three years.

The preliminary data also show that when it comes to the qualities of their candidate, nearly half want someone who can defeat President Barack Obama in this fall's elections.

The conservative viewpoint of many of the state's GOP voters was also clear. Solid majorities consider themselves conservative and around the same number support the tea party. And well more than half say they are born again or evangelical Christians.

Entry #205

Ga. teacher resigns over slavery math lesson

Ga. teacher resigns over slavery math lesson

Published - Jan 18 2012 02:29PM EST

Associated Press

LAWRENCEVILLE, Ga. (AP) — A spokeswoman says a suburban Atlanta teacher has resigned after an investigation over third-grade students being assigned math homework with word problems about slavery.

One of the problems read: "Each tree has 56 oranges. If eight slaves pick them equally, then how much would each slave pick?"

Another was: "If Frederick got two beatings each day, how many beatings did he get in one week?"

Gwinnett County schools spokeswoman Sloan Roach said Wednesday an investigation has concluded into four teachers who gave out the assignments at Beaver Ridge Elementary. She says the school system accepted the resignation of one teacher but declined to elaborate on the rest.

Parents were angered by the math problems, and the NAACP had called for teachers to be fired.

Entry #204
Page 10 of 24