Over the past couple of months, there has been a concerted effort on the part of interested parties to uncover specifics of Romney’s tax plan. If you’re reading this, you probably already know that Team Romney has declined to offer specifics, and instead, made broad statements describing “loopholes” they claim will foot the bill. Josh Barro over at Bloomberg recently took a closer look at Romney’s tax plan as well as the studies the former governor cites as support.

The Romney campaign sent over a list of the studies, but they are perhaps more accurately described as “analyses,” since four of them are blog posts or op-eds. I’m not hating — I blog for a living — but I don’t generally describe my posts as “studies.”…

Why don’t they release that analysis? My guess is because the analysis doesn’t exist, and the 20 percent rate cut figure was plucked out of thin air for political reasons without regard to whether it was feasible.

Mitt Romney claims that he isn’t concerned with 47% of the American electorate. He also seems to believe that 100% can’t do math.

As for Romney’s “jobs plan”, the fact checkers at the Washington post described this morning how his numbers don’t add up, and gave the Romney plan Four Pinocchios. It is important to note: this isn’t fact checking a single statement. Rather, the entire alleged basis for the Romney campaign, job creation, is based on a bogus plan. Whether you describe Romney’s policy positions as “fraudulent”, “flim-flam” or squishy, one thing remains clear: Mitt Romney’s presidential campaign is based upon the assumption that nobody will take a close look at his proposals and that he can run out the clock without anyone noticing.

The independent, third-party Tax Policy Center issued a report this week highlighting the tax burden shift from the wealthy to the middle class proposed by Romney. The new study basically concludes that, under the Republican’s plan, taxes will be cut for the very wealthy while increased for most middle and lower income taxpayers.

Several months ago, Romney cited the accuracy of the Tax Policy Center when the group analyzed the tax plan of Romney primary opponent Rick Perry.

Romney’s middle class tax hikes would come in the form of the elimination of the mortgage interest deduction, as well as health care and education deductions relied on by a large portion of middle class families.

Romney's plan would raise taxes on middle income earners, while providing deep cuts for the very wealthy.

Naturally, President Obama seized upon the report’s findings and translated the numbers to mean that the average middle class family would pay and additional $2,000 per year in taxes, while the average family earning over $1,000,000 per year would save about $250,000 via tax breaks.

The Obama campaign provided an online tax calculator to help individuals determine what it would mean to them.

Additionally, team Obama released a new ad whose theme will likely now become the centerpiece of his campaign against the former Massachusetts governor.

President Obama’s approval rating as measured by Gallup now matches its highest mark in nearly two years. Obama’s 14th quarter average approval of 46.8% has only led to an increasing number of comparisons between the 2012 and 2004 elections.

George H.W. Bush had an approval rating of 39.2% in July of 1992, Carter’s was 35.8% in July of 1980 and George W. Bush sat at around 47%.

Throw in an unlikable, seemingly out of touch, flip-flopping challenger from Massachusetts and you have your match. As it stands today, I would be surprised to see a final outcome much different than in ‘04.

1. Are you contending that an individual can simultaneously be the CEO, president, managing director of a company, and its sole stockholder and somehow be “disassociated” from the company or accurately classified as someone not having “any” formal involvement with a company?
2. You have stated that in “Feb. 1999 I left Bain capital and all management responsibility” and “I had no ongoing activity or involvement.” It depends on what the definition of “involvement” is, doesn’t it? Clearly you were involved with Bain to the extent that you owned it. Are you defining “involvement” in a uniquely specific way that only means “full-time, active, 60-hours-a-week, hands-on manager?”
3. You earned at least $100,000 as an executive from Bain in 2001 and 2002, separate from investment earnings according to filings with State of Massachusetts. Can you give an example of anyone else you personally know getting a six figure income, not dividend or investment return, but actual income, from a company they had nothing to do with?
4. What did you do for this $100,000 salary you earned from Bain in both 2000 and 2001?
5. In 2002, you are listed as one of two managing members of Bain Capital Investors LLC in its annual report. What does this mean?
6. If, in fact, you did not veto any major investment decision during your 1999 though 2002 ownership, doesn’t that imply your broad consent of management’s decisions?
7. According to the Boston Globe, “Romney also testified that ‘there were a number of social trips and business trips that brought [him] back to Massachusetts, board meetings’ while he was running the Olympics. He added that he remained on the boards of several companies, including the Lifelike Co., in which Bain Capital held a stake until 2001.” You testified that while running the Olympics you took a number of business trips to Massachusetts and for board meetings for companies including Lifelike Co. Bain had a stake in this company until 2001. Are you contending that you could attend board meetings for Lifelike Co at the same time Bain Capital had a stake in Lifelike Co and at the same time you owned the stock of Bain Capital, but that somehow your attending a board meeting for a company partially owned by Bain had nothing to do with Bain because you were on the board as Mitt Romney the individual, not as the representative of Bain?
8. When asked “did you attend board meetings for Bain after 1999″ you responded by saying “I did not manage Bain after 1999,” or that you didn’t attend any meetings involving things like firing people. This seems to suggest the possibility that you did attend Bain meetings in 2000 and 2001 that did not involve hiring or firing people or where you made the final decisions on investments. Is that possible?

Federal Government Spending Slows Under Obama

Most Americans, both right and left, would probably be surprised to learn that Dwight D. Eisenhower was in office the last time federal government spending grew this slowly.

This is important for two reasons. First, it highlights the aggressively misleading tone of the Romney campaign’s efforts to mischaracterize the President. One would have to think there might be some pushback among reasonable people who feel they’ve been tricked.

Second, the public might be more accepting of additional stimulus measures to grow the economy.

As any economist would tell you, Gross Domestic Product is calculated with the following equation:

C (consumer spending) + I (investment) + G (government spending) + Net Exports (exports – imports).

Forcefully slowing on of the primary drivers to GDP naturally makes growing the economy at an increasing rate considerably more difficult.

In a speech to the United Autoworkers Union in Toledo yesterday, Joe Biden claimed that Obama has a “spine of steel”.

In his appearance in The Road We’ve Traveled, former president Bill Clinton questioned whether he himself would have had the courage to make the tough decisions rendered by Obama.

In the video, Rahm Emanuel discloses that he advised Obama to take the politically easy road on health care legislation.

Last week, David Axelrod highlighted conservative columnist George Will’s question of whether the Republicans could take on real bad guys if they are afraid of Rush Limbaugh.

Why are they doing this? Simple. This is going to be their line of attack against Mitt Romney’s history of flip-flopping and politically expedient decision making. The campaign appears to be setting itself up to attack Romney’s flip flops as weak, and lacking of courage, or “backbone”.

Here is yesterday’s footage of Biden’s speech to the UAW.

The video features David Axelrod, Austan Goolsbee, and Bill Clinton, among others, describing the economic conditions the President faced upon taking office.

It opens with a discussion surrounding the bailout and restructuring of the automobile industry, moves on to explain health care legislation, and proceeds to cover the end of the Iraq war and the pursuit of Osama Bin Laden.

Watch the entire video here:

The law would bar access to the U.S. banking system to any country that doesn’t demonstrate significant reductions in its purchases of Iranian oil during the first half of 2012. While India has made attempts to investigate alternative sources of energy, it has not yet asked its refiners to cease purchasing Iranian oil.

India is currently the third largest importer of Iranian oil behind China and Japan. South Korea is fourth. Recent data shows that both India and Korea actually increased purchases in January. South Korea plans to reassess their imports at the end of June.

India released a statement saying that they have not reduced purchases due to legacy contracts that run through March, and that they plan to reduce purchases once their current contract expires.