Log in or Sign up

The Debate (October 3rd)

Discussion in 'Free Speech Alley' started by Cajun Sensation, Oct 3, 2012.

Page 7 of 9

LSUMASTERMIND Founding Member

Joined:

Nov 15, 2007

Messages:

12,992

Likes Received:

2,461

http://www.tnr.com/blog/plank/10812...dicare-pre-existing-contradictions-deceptions

again Mitt changed his position on a few things last night and flat out lie on others. Still a good performance by him for his aggressiveness.

The pundits are unanimous. Mitt Romney had more energy, offered more specifics, and may even have come across as more empathetic. I agree and polls suggest voters saw it the same way.
The debate may not change the dynamics of the election. But if I knew nothing about the candidates and this was my first exposure to the campaign, I’d think this Romney fellow has a detailed tax plan, wants to defend the middle class and poor, and will take care of people who can’t find health insurance.
Problem is, this isn’t my first exposure to the campaign. I happen to know a lot about the candidates. And I know that those three things aren’t true. Romney has made promises about taxes that are mathematically incompatible with one another. He’s outlined a spending plan that would devastate the middle class and (particularly) the poor. And his health care plan would leave people with pre-existing conditions pretty much in the same perilous situation they were before the Affordable Care Act became law.
My standard for candor in politics is whether candidates have offered the voters an accurate portrait of what they’ve done and what they are proposing. Tonight, Romney did precisely the opposite. And that really ought to be the story everybody is writing, although I doubt it will be.
Some details:
1. Taxes. President Obama repeatedly described Romney’s tax plan as a $5 trillion tax plan. Romney repeatedly took exception. The figure is correct. Romney has not given many details about his tax plan, but it’s possible to extrapolate from his promises and theTax Policy Center, a project of the Brookings Institution and Urban Institute, did just that. Crunching the numbers, they determined that his proposed rate cut would cost… $5 trillion.
Romney has said he would offset those cuts by closing loopholes. The Tax Policy Centerhas analyzed that promise and found that it is mathematically impossible, unless Romney raises taxes on the middle class or lets his tax plan increase the deficit—neither of which Romney has said he's willing to do. Romney has challenged the Tax Policy Center conclusion and did so again tonight, referring mysteriously to “six studies” that supposedly prove he’s right. He's also been cryptic about what deductions he'd cut and, tonight, even suggested maybe he'd back away from some of the cuts if the numbers didn't add up—although, as always, he was so vague that the statements could mean absolutely nothing.
I wish Obama had pressed him on this inconsistency even more directly than he did: “OK, governor, you say you can offset the $5 trillion cost of your tax plan. Tell us how, with real numbers. Are you getting rid of the home mortgage deduction? The exclusion for health insurance? Be straight with the American people about what you are proposing.” Obama didn’t do that, but it's a question Romney has never been willing to answer.
2. The deficit and spending cuts. Asked by moderator Jim Lehrer how he’d cut the deficit, Romney outlined his plan for cutting spending. It included three main provisions.
First, Romney said, he’d repeal the Affordable Care Act. He’s serious about that, I presume. The problem is that, according to the Congressional Budget Office, the health care law reduces the deficit. Repeal it and the deficit goes up. Then Romney said he’d review programs and cut all that are non-essential, singling out PBS. Well, fine. That’s pennies on the budget. It wouldn’t be nearly enough to make a meaningful dent in the deficit.
After that, Romney mentioned “turning programs over to the states.” Here there is real money, particularly if Romney includes Medicaid, which will soon eclipse Medicare as the government’s most expensive health insurance program. But Romney suggested this would work because the states are more efficient. This is what he usually says. The implication is that the states can spend a lot less on the programs without dramatically reducing services.
That’s nonsense. Medicaid already pays less than every other insurance program, private and public. Cutting more from the program would inevitably force states to reduce whom or what the program covers. A year ago, when the House Republicans proposed a similar scheme, a Kaiser Family Foundation report by Urban Institute researchers crunched the numbers and determined that the Medicaid cut would mean between 14 and 27 million people would lose health insurance.
By the way, the researchers assumed states would deal with declining Medicaid money exclusively by cutting eligibility for the able-bodied and non-elderly. In fact, most of the program’s money goes to the disabled and elderly. Most likely, they’d feel at least some of the pain.
3. Medicare: Over and over again, Romney attacked Obama because the Affordable Care Act reduces Medicare spending by $716 billion. As you probably know by now, Paul Ryan’s budget made the exact same cut. And less than a year ago, Romney was praising this budget to the hilt.
But there’s another problem here: Romney’s own budget numbers don’t add up. Remember, he’s promised to cap non-defense spending at 16 percent of GDP. And he’s said he won’t touch Social Security. If he walls off Medicare, too, that would mean even sharper cuts across the board. How sharp? The Center on Budget and Policy Prioritiesran the numbers. If Medicare is getting that $716 billion back, he’d have to cut other programs by an average of a third by 2016 and in half by 2022. Non-discretionary defense spending, which “has averaged 3.9 percent of GDP and never fallen below 3.2 percent,” would fall to 1.7 percent.
That’s simply not realistic. I have no problem believing Romney would cut domestic program deeply; his willingness to endorse the kinds of cuts he has specified, to Medicaid and food stamps, tell you everything you need to know about his priorities. But these figures are the stuff of fantasy. Either Romney can’t restore the Medicare dollars as he says or he’s not living up to his promises on deficit reduction.
The real shame of the exchange was that Romney's own plan got so little attention. Again, I wish Obama could have pressed Romney harder, or explained more clearly, why the voucher scheme he proposes would likely end the guarantee Medicare now makes to seniors—and why current retirees, as well as future ones, would feel the impact.

Click to expand...

LSUMASTERMIND, Oct 4, 2012

#61

red55 likes this.
LSUsupaFan Founding Member

Joined:

Feb 20, 2003

Messages:

8,787

Likes Received:

1,207

red55 said: ↑

Why won't he say which loopholes and exactly how much income they would generate?
Click to expand...

He said they are all on the table. The only qualifier being that it does not result in a tax increase.

LSUsupaFan, Oct 4, 2012

#62
LSUsupaFan Founding Member

Joined:

Feb 20, 2003

Messages:

8,787

Likes Received:

1,207

LSUMASTERMIND said: ↑

http://www.tnr.com/blog/plank/10812...dicare-pre-existing-contradictions-deceptions

again Mitt changed his position on a few things last night and flat out lie on others. Still a good performance by him for his aggressiveness.
Click to expand...

You can't really cite the Tax Policy Center study because they made assumptions on what Romney would cut which may be faulty. Their assessment of his plan is utterly worthless.

And what the blog you cited posted about the affordable care act reducing the deficit is also false. The latest CBO scoring shows it will cost twice as much as anticipated and run at a deficit. That was before the repeal of the terrible 1099 requirements which were included in the act. The requirements were supposed to pay for 10% of the bills programs. That money is now gone and wasn't replaced. So a bill that was once scored as deficit neutral now adds to the deficit.

LSUsupaFan, Oct 4, 2012

#63
LSUMASTERMIND Founding Member

Joined:

Nov 15, 2007

Messages:

12,992

Likes Received:

2,461

LSUsupaFan said: ↑

You can't really cite the Tax Policy Center study because they made assumptions on what Romney would cut which may be faulty. Their assessment of his plan is utterly worthless.
Click to expand...

assumptions yes, but they are assuming on whats currently in tax policy and his plan doesn't add up.
Do you think it adds up. By not adding to the deficit?

LSUMASTERMIND, Oct 4, 2012

#64
LSUsupaFan Founding Member

Joined:

Feb 20, 2003

Messages:

8,787

Likes Received:

1,207

LSUMASTERMIND said: ↑

assumptions yes, but they are assuming on whats currently in tax policy and his plan doesn't add up.
Do you think it adds up. By not adding to the deficit?
Click to expand...

In principle I think you can cut marginal rates and offset the cuts by closing credits and deductions. The only way to say it doesn't add up is to assume you know the mechanics of it as Brookings did.

LSUsupaFan, Oct 4, 2012

#65
LSUMASTERMIND Founding Member

Joined:

Nov 15, 2007

Messages:

12,992

Likes Received:

2,461

LSUsupaFan said: ↑

In principle I think you can cut marginal rates and offset the cuts by closing credits and deductions. The only way to say it doesn't add up is to assume you know the mechanics of it as Brookings did.
Click to expand...

by 20 percent?

LSUMASTERMIND, Oct 4, 2012

#66
MLUTiger Secular Humanist

Joined:

Aug 9, 2001

Messages:

4,606

Likes Received:

810

mctiger said: ↑

He also repeatedly said he would increase revenue by eliminating the tax loopholes.
Click to expand...

red55 said: ↑

Why won't he say which loopholes and exactly how much income they would generate?
Click to expand...

Because it would be damaging to his campaign.

MLUTiger, Oct 4, 2012

#67
LSUMASTERMIND Founding Member

Joined:

Nov 15, 2007

Messages:

12,992

Likes Received:

2,461

LSUsupaFan said: ↑

In principle I think you can cut marginal rates and offset the cuts by closing credits and deductions. The only way to say it doesn't add up is to assume you know the mechanics of it as Brookings did.
Click to expand...

on principle do you think eliminating the mortgage interest deduction with kill home sales?

LSUMASTERMIND, Oct 4, 2012

#68
LSUsupaFan Founding Member

Joined:

Feb 20, 2003

Messages:

8,787

Likes Received:

1,207

LSUMASTERMIND said: ↑

by 20 percent?
Click to expand...

I don't even think it is that hard. We exempt trillions from taxation every year through deductions and credits.

LSUsupaFan, Oct 4, 2012

#69
LSUMASTERMIND Founding Member

Joined:

Nov 15, 2007

Messages:

12,992

Likes Received:

2,461

LSUsupaFan said: ↑

I don't even think it is that hard. We exempt trillions from taxation every year through deductions and credits.
Click to expand...

I willing to bet thats mainly corporations. which he will not end those deductions.

LSUMASTERMIND, Oct 4, 2012

#70

(You must log in or sign up to reply here.)

Page 7 of 9

Share This Page