lot of taxes and he's proud to do it what those tax returns really show us and the supreme court on monday took a stand for our right to privacy or did they actually cut into our rights to privacy what do they do and how might it affect you the next time you make a phone call or surf the web also the indiana state senate passed what they call a right to work legislation monday but really it's right to work for the last legislation i'll explain. when some of america's don't pay their fair share in taxes the rest of us get screwed after weeks of playing cat and mouse with them mitt romney finally released his tax returns yesterday last night in the republican presidential debate in reference to his tax returns and tax rates he said this. my income how much taxes are paid how much i paid to charity you'll see how complicated taxes can be but but i pay all the taxes that are legally required and not

a dollar more i don't think you want someone as the candidate for president who pays more taxes than he owes so while they point out that that's the case and will to be discussion sure it will be an article you know but it's entirely legal and fair absolutely i'm proud of the fact that i pay a lot of taxes and really a lot of taxes upon closer examination romney's tax returns there are several things that set him apart from the average american for example mitt romney makes more money in one day than the average american makes in one year and even scarier he makes enough money to become a one percenter every single week at the same time romney the multi-millionaire a a lower tax rate the most middle class americans and he says he pays a lot of taxes joining us now to discuss mitt romney's tax debacle is a amanda beetle reporter with think progress and think it was there ok amanda great to have you back with us when it comes to payroll taxes the average american contributes seven point six six five percent almost eight percent. for medicare or

social security check on the payroll tax what's mitt romney plan i believe it's one tenth of one percent so why is that when it's because that the taxes and medicare taxes all come from earned income most of his income is coming from capital gains in money that he's money he's getting that he's not actually from a regular income is what most people pay for their taxes and it's also part of why is taxes in general of so low but if you're talking about something that everyone's pay going to it there's all this concern about medicare and running up money for social security and he's not paying into it he's paying one tenth of one percent why do we have a capitalist gains tax in an ordinary income tax why we have an income tax for people who work and then we have a capitalist gains tax i was called capital gains for. capital gains tax for people who like paris hilton earns a living city in her bikini on her butt around the pool waiting for the dividend check to arrive i don't get it it's the idea is that investment income from capital gains that these people are job creators they're going to go on and invest this

money to create even more jobs for more people walk into ronald reagan thought that was a bad idea he brought both those tax rates to twenty eight percent he made them identical when he came right out and said that the capital gains should be taxed at the same rate as ordinary income what do these republicans all have amnesia clearly they're not listening to what reagan tax i believe under gingrich's tax plan romney would even be a better off because gingrich has proposed getting rid of the capital gains tax entirely whereas romney i think i believe would at least leave it at charging something for capital gains tax you know it was twenty percent before george w. bush remember correctly. rate romney famously had some of his wealth in offshore accounts. i lived in europe for a year and i looked into getting a swiss bank account just because i had to get a european bank account and i had heard that they were kind of cool and what i discovered was that when you put your money in a swiss bank you have to pay them interest and i said to this was the banker you know the why and he said because we keep secrets you know so why would why would this guy put his money in

a bank in switzerland where he has to pay them to take his money. i don't believe ever fully explained that but i know that they closed a swiss bank account in two thousand and ten because it would it was too afraid it's going to politically embarrassing to have a swiss bank account but he saw that the cayman islands account and i believe they talked also about that he had accounts in other known taxation of luxembourg and ireland. so how does his how would his own proposed tax plan affect his taxes i believe the tax is about half because he wants to lower the taxes even more because again the idea that these people who are earning capital capital gains that they're investors they're going to turn around and invest this money and create more jobs so that's their theory is the theory romney's tax rate which is already only thirteen point nine percent in two thousand and ten it's estimated about fifteen percent in two thousand and eleven he cut it in half amused and bush cut about five percent cut by twenty five percent actually

from. twenty to fifteen percent and it didn't seem to create an explosion of jobs my recollection is that the bush administration left it on a negative note that that would be correct ok apparently he needed for lawyers and a former i.r.s. commissioner to explain his own tax returns is that just like the nature of being a multimillionaire makes forty million bucks every two years i guess that all it says is the only the main jobs that created from romney's capital gains were for his lawyers and his bankers and as. amanda beatle thank you so much for the great reporting good to hear good to have you with us will be in last night's republican debate in florida both mitt romney and newt gingrich attacked each other over who's closeted skeletons or worse leaving republican voters left to decide who is the lesser of two evils the tax evader or the philandering lobbyist good luck on that one. in the best of the rest of the news police may need a warrant from now on if they want to plant g.p.s. systems in your car to track you so says the supreme court in what many are calling

a huge victory for privacy rights in the case of the united states versus jones the high court found that the police violated the fourth amendment rights of a suspected drug kingpin antwan jones when they install a g.p.s. tracking device on his car and monitors it it is activities for twenty eight days without a warrant still there are questions left unanswered as to what reasonably are or what really are unreasonable searches in an age where people are using three hundred thirty two million cell phones that can be tracked and surfing the internet visiting websites that can be tracked to court didn't really touch that question so even though the nation took one step back from orwell's one thousand nine hundred four with yesterday's supreme court ruling there are still a lot of questions around what constitutes privacy in today's digital world joining us to discuss the supreme court's ruling and how it really affects our privacy rights going forward is ginger mccall the director of the electronic privacy information center is open government program change your welcome back thank you for having me great to have you here with us scalia has this. theory.

and he was in the majority decision the five this was a unanimous decision all but two completely different sets of reasons for two largely different sorts of reasons and scalia said basically this is a property rights thing you're trespassing on somebody's property that's an invasion of their privacy that's an invasion or that's a violation the fourth amendment it's not an invasion of privacy. on the other hand you had four other justices who wrote a concurring different opinion saying well it might be a trespass but it's also an invasion of privacy is that concerning that the five justices who really decided the case didn't think this was an invasion of privacy merely that it was trespass well the important thing and the upbeat thing about this case is that scalia and the rest of the justices in the majority didn't poor close the option that this would have under the other analysis also been an invasion of privacy in fact he explicitly pointed out that he wasn't foreclosing that this was an invasion of privacy under the cats which is after the u.s.

cats case under that sort of analysis he just said that here the obvious answer is that it's an invasion of privacy under the property based analysis so they're just going to stick with that and go with the easy track but in the cat's case was the one where they it was whether or not if you're not going to wiretap somebody at their home but you're going to do it at the phone station is is that still a wiretap is still an invasion of privacy and the supreme court ruled holland that . there what came out of that was an analysis that's based on a reasonable expectation of privacy based in part on your subjective expectation of privacy as well as society's object of a expectation of privacy an expectation of privacy that society is willing to accept this is this is you know there are some here's a quote from katz that that was in the dissent it's the concurring opinion that disagreed the minority or green opinion they quoted from the katz case the

existence of a property rights. is but one element in determining whether expectations of privacy are legitimate to the promise of the property interests control the right of the government to search and seize has been discredited which basically and this was being quoted by the other four justices is they're throwing it in school is face well here scalia actually recognized that the cat's case as being valid and he said that yes property based analysis is one of the analyse is that you can run into it to figure out whether or not there is a privacy interest and the great thing about this it's rare that i get to come on here and deliver good news about privacy issues in this day is world but the great thing about this is that the other justices the justices in the concurrence and also sotomayor suggested a willingness to to really take a good hard look at these electronic surveillance issues and in fact she said that she was willing to reexamine precedent and yet case and i think that we're going to look back five ten years from now and say this was probably one of the most important cases that she wrote

a decision. do you agree yes and that precedent that she said that she was willing to reexamine is this idea of the third party doctor and which is if you give a piece of information you give an item to someone else and then trust that data to that person then you lose your expectation of privacy and she said that she was willing to reexamine that and here's why that's so important because in today's world with cloud computing with a lot of of web based applications you're giving so much of your data away a third tour google to facebook to these other companies that's the third party and it's so important that doctrine to this question and this is this blue this is a headline from the washington post i want to put for thirty three this afternoon for a news story google to track users across products and the first paragraph or the summary king web giant google says it won't allow users to opt out of changes which will follow activities across email search youtube and. other services the

shift is expected to invite greater suit scrutiny of its privacy practices. is this the kind of thing the sort of my or was basically saying in her in her individual she wrote a separate individual concurrent. not to sun agreement concurrence in this case is this what she was talking about the you know maybe we're going to be looking to google want to this is precisely the sort of thing that she signaled and also the other concurrent justices and to some extent schoolie and the majority as well that they were going to be looking at these issues and in all of the opinions they put out a very explicit invitation to congress to legislate in this area to come up with a good comprehensive privacy legislation that will protect people. and. almost justice brandeis wrote in material where the physical connection toll from wars was made but i guess we're we're covering the same territory here. so the trespass theory will hopefully be extended and. do you think that somebody

can sue google and provoke this i think that we will see a line of cases that come out of this it's it's good news and this is a case this is language that we're as privacy advocates going to be quoting back to the court for years to come because there's a lot of great strong language in here about the value of privacy and the ways that this sort of surveillance can really undermine the important values in the united states of america our freedom of expression our freedom of speech and that language it's it's great this is the first time that we've had something to celebrate you know in a long time where the decision i thought was fascinating ginger thank you so much and it was much appreciated thank you eventually the supreme court and congress will have to weigh in on these issues let's hope they make the right decisions. after the break the indiana state senate and governor mitch daniels are the latest culprits in the ongoing war against the middle class but what did they what they did on monday and how is it going to affect the people of indiana.

issues that so much and this is huge news an issue on the mark with egypt's unfinished business a year on the revolution that you have to do spirit it appears to be stone the military rulers who replaced me. will. technology innovations all the developments around russia we've got the future covered. crazy alert wind power solar power a. daughter power giant butter sculptures of the main attraction at this year's pennsylvania farm show and this year's major player is

a one thousand pound giant of butter brilliance after the show's over the owner of the sculpture steve rein for plans to break down the sculpture and use it as energy to power both his farm and house how does a very creative form of alternative energy work essentially the butter is dumped into a giant manure pit microorganisms develop eat the mass of butter and produce methane as a byproduct ranford says the amount of methane produced to be enough to power his entire house and farm for three full days and also said is relied on methane as a source of energy in the past or has it because others are already trying to corner the market. your take my take is your chance to send into us your questions comments rants

observations about anything we talk about here in the big picture during my radio show and it's my chance to give you my take on it one more time tonight's first comment came to us from stacy our facebook page stacy wrote if there is a brokered convention big if you think that it would spell the end of the g.o.p. at least in the g.o.p. we know that we know in its current incarnation if they pick someone that did not go out and campaign that was simply infuriate the base measure if they put chris christie out there as the compromise after the furious debates and campaigning that has already taken place. a brokered convention happens when no single law money goes into the convention with enough delegates to have already locked up the nomination and although newt's not on the ballot in at least three and maybe five states he could still if he really hits a roll with enough delegates to be the nominee are more likely those started this whole thing just as a book tour and therefore has no real ground game offices or structures in place for most of the country is that mitt romney will be the nominee because he's done

his homework and he has enough money to outspend newt but even if it goes down to a race between the two of them that's so tight that neither has enough delegates odds are the convention would pick either one or the other either by other candidates throwing them their delegates delegates decided to change their votes which they could do or by the elders of the party making a choice i mean really surprised if somebody who hasn't been in the debates was picked moving on our next comment comes to us via twitter julie who tweets under the name ethel rosenberg. tom hartman i know you love this t.s.a. stuff but the agency says that rand paul was at no time detain. yeah and the agency says their chertoff porno x. ray scanners don't produce to dangerous levels of x. rays even though all european countries have banned them because the t.s.a. son says something doesn't make it true they told bomb ron paul rand paul to stand in that box now i call that detained maybe they think detained means sent to get

low but i agree with rand paul that he was detained in fact the entire security circus at our airports is a form of unconstitutional detention and search in violation of our rights to be presumed innocence and our rights of privacy. finally our last comment of the day is from our viewer rant line and let's just say kids should cover their ears come on you're only failing the ignorant because you're such a god you know you're not a democracy you. can't get a constitutional republic and i show just. decide what the guns are for. now comparing to if i ever gave a kid on a truck in washington if people decide you. yeah we're republican not a democracy you know the republicans which sounds a lot like republic right roll battled one out with joe mccarthy and limbaugh's

been hammering it for years the fact is that james madison the father of our constitution called our nation both a democracy and a republic of various times the words were in till seven hundred eighty seven interchangeable if you were to get super technical what we really are is a constitutionally limited because our constitution limits the power of government representative because we vote for representatives not for laws democratic because majority rules republic a nation of laws of the constitution constitutionally limited democratic republic oh and leave you to. that's it for my take your take tonight if you'd like your comments and questions heard on this segment of the big picture listen up we want to know your to send us your comments by visiting the tom hartman facebook page but twitter at underscore apartment or in the champ room on the message boards or through the blog and you can also leave a message on a rant line at two zero two five three six fifty three zero six agree disagree

sound on it's all welcome but remember that your comments may be used on the air. the man who is delivering the republican response to the president's state of the union address is this guy republican governor from indiana mitch daniels and the thing all americans should know is they listen to his speech is that he's a great multi-tasker because not only can he give a partisan response to the state of the union but he can also wage a war on working people at the same time on monday the indiana state senate has legislation to turn their state into a so-called right to work state that legislation is expected to pass the state house and may be signed into law soon by governor governor mitch daniels and on from that point on working people in indiana are screwed so what

exactly do right to work laws mean let's take a look inside a factory or call it tom's tractor company has ten employees who work there let's say a majority of them six decide that they're going to form a union. under the wagner act also known as the national labor relations act passed back in one hundred thirty five you have to administer a should they have the right to do just that a majority they have a union just like when i incorporated the tractor factory and got certain government protections against liability in tax benefits the workers who unionize will get certain rights as well like the right to collectively bargain with me assuming that it's my tractor factory i don't actually have one anyway and wants a majority votes to unionize then in most states all ten workers at tom's tractor factory are now part of the union all ten workers get the benefits

of the union including better pay better benefits better working conditions and all ten workers also have an obligation to pay dues to keep that union functioning dues by the way that these guys these ten workers set by a vote they also vote for their leaders that they vote in office it's a democracy and if a worker doesn't want to be a part of the union if he doesn't want the better pay and benefits then he has the absolute right to work anywhere else in the world except in times for tractor company but right to work laws change all that under right to work laws which came into existence in one nine hundred forty seven under the taft hartley act it was passed by republican house and senate over the veto of president harry truman when a majority of workers vote to join a union and the shops gets he gets unionized those who don't want to pay union dues don't have to even though they get the benefits of all the bargaining and all the

other work that the union does for them. so those four employees of tom's tractor company who don't want to pay for the union will still get the better pay and wages but they don't have to contribute a dime to it what happens when that happens well the union loses it loses money it loses people the workers turn on each other until eventually the union collapses and then of course wages go down benefits are wast and working conditions think again this is exactly what's played out in states that have so-called right to work laws or as they should be called right to work for less laws. right now there are twenty two states that have right to work for less laws indiana would become the twenty third state. and here are the facts about these states these right to work for less states on average workers in the right to work for less states make five point five thousand three hundred thirty three dollars

a year less than their counterparts in freberg and states twenty one percent of those workers. twenty percent excuse me twenty one percent more people in the right to work for latin for less states lack employee coverage health insurance in the right for work for less kid states compared to freberg and states poverty is two point three percent higher in right to work for less states and looking at numbers from the bureau of labor statistics incidents of workplace deaths and injury are fifty one percent higher in the right to work for less states than in states that don't have the right to work for less laws so basically you have a right to work for less a right to work without health care a right to work in poverty and a right to work in a dangerous environment thanks to laws like mitch daniel will probably be siding later this week that they call the right to work and here's what's really troubling once indiana passes this law. it'll be the first state in this region. a

manufacturing bill to pass a right to work for less law and this is where unions were born actually up and up into wisconsin as well it's becoming the place where unions are dying now. and as a result the middle class is done. as this chart shows as union membership has declined in america so too has the middle classes share of annual income we need to put an end to this war and unions just recently in wisconsin we saw the power actually let me do this is this is unionization and wages notice a correlation just recently in wisconsin we saw the power of the labor movement when it fought back against governor scott walker and collected over a million signatures to recall him from office we now need that same energy in indiana where governor mitch daniels is

a rising star in the republican party and we need to turn him into the next scott walker the unions are literally democracies in the workplace and we have to save them. if you want to restore a strong middle class to america. that's the big picture for tonight for more information on the stories we covered visit our website to thom hartmann dot com free speech dot org and. also check out our two youtube channels or a link to tom hartman dot com this entire show is available as a free video podcast at i tunes and we have a free thom hartmann i phone and a brand new i pad app at the app store. you can set a speed back at twitter at tom underscore hartman on facebook at tom underscore her on our blogs message boards and telephone comment line at thom hartmann dot com. and don't forget democracy begins when you show up it begins when you stand up and say right to work right to work at the you know that's right to work for less let's

change our language when you say yeah it's a democracy and a republic when you participate when you show up in movement politics when you go out of occupy something when you show up at the one of the political parties and say yeah i'm here i want to be a delegate i want to be a precinct committee person when you volunteer when you're there get out there and get active tag your it will see it.

with the u.s. economy still on the ropes the president pledges another program for change during his annual state of the union address. in libya darkie loyalists claim they're in control of the town of bani walid as the country's interim rulers struggle to keep the peace. and coming full circle in tahrir square thousands of egyptian protesters angry form are expected in central cairo as a country marks the first anniversary of its part the uprising.

there you're watching r.t. world news on the very latest developments well as the u.s. presidential race picks up pace of november's vote rock obama is trying to ratchet up support for reelection he's just delivered his state of the union address way made promises of change ahead let's cross live to washington now where artie's going to church account has been listening in he's stepped into the white house pledging change is there any skepticism that it still has more to do three years on this was president obama's last state of the union address before he runs for reelection so his goal was to highlight his achievements on lay out his promises as far as domestic policies he speech were.