The face of the GOP in the US House of Representatives as it thinks about shutting down the government and jeopardizing the full faith and credit of the United States with a potentially catastrophic default on the national debt. ...
The View from the Middle of the Road
This blog will provide commentary on the intersection of financial and political decision-making. However, the blog may also contain, from time to time, random thoughts which quite often may have no point whatsoever.
Saturday, September 28, 2013
Friday, September 27, 2013
Wall Street to GOP: Are You Crazy?
It's time to take a defensive posture with regard to investment portfolios .... I am liquidating equity holdings in favor of cash. Between the budget debate, the debt ceiling debate and the possibility of the Fed deciding later this month to taper its purchases of bonds, the probability that there will be a significant market downturn is greater than any upside potential over the next few weeks.
Tuesday, September 24, 2013
The Affordable Care Act is a "Jobs Killer"???
For those who would
argue that the Affordable Care Act (aka, ObamaCare) has deprived the US economic
recovery of full-time jobs in favor of part-time jobs (and, therefore, is a
"jobs killer"), here's a chart showing to the objective observer that
the spike in part-time jobs and the loss of full-time jobs was a result of the
recession and not the ACA. Indeed, the trend in part-time jobs has been a
decline, even as the ACA was considered in the Congress, enacted into law and
now is about to be implemented on October 1st.
So ... what is the real motivation
of those opposing the ACA, which provides the opportunity for 10s of millions
of American citizens to obtain health insurance that they otherwise may not be
able to have?
(The chart shows the FT/PT employment relationship for the period January 2007 - August 2013.) |
Monday, December 31, 2012
Thursday, December 20, 2012
Saturday, December 15, 2012
Monday, December 10, 2012
How to Increase Tax Revenues - A Picture is Worth 1,332 Words
Click on the link to see a graphic of the alternative increases is tax revenues that attach to President Obama's recent debt reduction proposal ...
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/12/08/us/variations-on-obamas-tax-plan.html?ref=politics
Or, here are the 1,332 words that explain the graphic ,,,
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/12/08/us/variations-on-obamas-tax-plan.html?ref=politics
Or, here are the 1,332 words that explain the graphic ,,,
Despite
hints in recent days that President Obama and House Speaker John A. Boehner might
compromise on the tax rate to be paid by top earners, a host of other knotty
tax questions could still derail a deal to avert a fiscal crisis in January.
The math shows why. Even if Republicans were to agree to Mr. Obama’s core demand — that the top marginal income rates return to the Clinton-era levels of 36 percent and 39.6 percent after Dec. 31, rather than stay at the Bush-era rates of 33 percent and 35 percent — the additional revenue would be only about a quarter of the $1.6 trillion that Mr. Obama wants to collect over 10 years. That would be about half of the $800 billion that Republicans have said they would be willing to raise.
The math shows why. Even if Republicans were to agree to Mr. Obama’s core demand — that the top marginal income rates return to the Clinton-era levels of 36 percent and 39.6 percent after Dec. 31, rather than stay at the Bush-era rates of 33 percent and 35 percent — the additional revenue would be only about a quarter of the $1.6 trillion that Mr. Obama wants to collect over 10 years. That would be about half of the $800 billion that Republicans have said they would be willing to raise.
That
calculation alone suggests the scope of the other major tax issues to be
negotiated beyond tax rates. And that is why many people in both parties remain
unsure that a deal will come together before Jan. 1. Without agreement, more
than $500 billion in automatic tax increases on all Americans and cuts in
domestic and military programs will take hold, which could cause a recession if
left in place for months, economists say.
“The
question is making sure that we hit a revenue target that’s required for a
truly balanced deficit-reduction plan,” said Representative Chris Van Hollen of
Maryland , the
senior Democrat on the House Budget Committee. “And when the president and all
of us say this is a question of math, we mean it. It’s very hard to make the
numbers work without the top rates going back to the full Clinton-era levels.”
The top
tax rates are taking center stage right now because Mr. Obama believes he won a
mandate after campaigning relentlessly on the idea of extending Mr. Bush’s tax
cuts only for households with annual income below $250,000. But the two parties
also have ideological differences on taxes affecting savings, investment and
inheritance, which have flared in battles going back to the Reagan years. To
get a deal in the coming weeks, those differences must be addressed at least in
broad terms, even if the details are left to a battle over revamping the tax
code next year.
The
argument over rates is far from settled. Although the two sides seem close
enough on the percentages for easy compromise, principle and politics loom
large: Republicans oppose raising rates as a matter of ideology, saying that it
kills jobs, and the president insists that he will not keep the Bush-era rates
on income above roughly $250,000 after two campaigns in which he vowed to return
them to the levels of the Clinton years.
“Just to
be clear, I’m not going to sign any package that somehow prevents the top rate
from going up for folks at the top 2 percent,” he said Thursday.
In recent
days, comments from some Republicans, including Mr. Boehner, their chief
negotiator, have hinted that the party — recognizing its weak hand — might be
moving toward a concession on tax rates. Seldom mentioned is that Mr. Obama’s
revenue total also reflects four other changes from Bush-era tax cuts: higher
tax rates on investment income from capital gains and dividends, and the
restoration of two other Clinton-era provisions limiting deductions and tax
exemptions for affluent individuals.
Together
those changes would raise $407.4 billion over a decade — nearly as much as the
president’s proposal on higher rates, which would raise $441.6 billion by 2023,
for a total of $849 billion. Another $119 billion would come from higher estate taxes, opposed by
Republicans and some Democrats.
And both
the president and Republicans are committed to raising hundreds of billions of
dollars by overhauling the tax code to further limit or end the tax breaks that
high-income taxpayers can claim, though they differ in how to do that.
Republicans
want to raise all $800 billion from overhauling the tax code, erasing tax
breaks for high-income households and using the new revenues both to reduce
deficits and to lower everyone’s tax rates. But they have not proposed how to
do that, and the president insists it cannot be done without hitting
middle-income taxpayers.
Mr. Obama
has proposed to keep existing tax breaks but to limit the rate of those breaks
for people in higher tax brackets to 28 percent, which would raise $584 billion
in a decade. He has proposed variations of that proposal for four years, only
to be ignored by both parties because of opposition from charitable groups, the
housing industry, insurers and others to curbing deductions for charitable giving,
mortgage insurance and other purposes.
Yet both
parties seem poised to confront that opposition because they want a budget deal
to commit Congress and the White House to overhaul the tax code next year. That
is another reason Mr. Obama wants to have the top rates as high as possible:
The lower the rates now, the harder it would be to raise revenues next year in
overhauling the code.
Some
Republicans inside and outside of Congress agree. “Actually, I would rather see
the rates go up than do it the other way because it gives us greater chance to
reform the tax code and broaden the base in the future,” Senator Tom Coburn,
Republican of Oklahoma, said last week.
Roughly
splitting the difference on the top rates — settling at 35 percent and 37
percent — would collect nearly $200 billion over 10 years, under half the
amount that would be raised if the rates reverted to Clinton-era levels,
according to data from Citizens for Tax Justice and the Institute on Taxation
and Economic Policy, research groups that advocate for a progressive tax code.
In the
years of debate over the Bush tax cuts, which predates Mr. Obama’s first
election, $800 billion has been the rough estimate for how much revenue could
be raised in the first decade by ending them for the highest-income 2 percent
of taxpayers. But most attention focused on the top rates, which account for
half of the revenue equation.
The
remainder would come from the other four tax changes for Americans with the
highest income, two raising taxes on investment income from capital gains and
dividends and two restoring restrictions on the itemized deductions and
exemptions claimed by high earners.
Under Mr.
Obama’s plan, the tax rates for long-term capital gains and dividends, now 15
percent, would revert to 20 percent for capital gains and to 39.6 percent for
dividends, the same as for ordinary income. Republicans oppose the increases,
and Senate Democrats oppose the proposed tax on dividends; their bill would tax
both dividends and capital gains at 20 percent.
People in
both parties say that the four tax issues can be readily worked out. Mr. Obama
is widely expected to give ground on the main sticking point, the dividends
tax. Yet that would mean roughly $100 billion less in additional revenue over
10 years than his current proposal for the higher dividend tax.
Another
dispute is over estate and gift taxes. Here again Democrats are divided within
as well as against Republicans, and big money is at stake — $118.8 billion
through 2022 under Mr. Obama’s plan, or $143.3 billion counting assorted other
adjustments.
Currently,
a two-year-old bipartisan compromise holds that inheritances are taxed at 35
percent, with an exemption of $5 million for each spouse. On Jan. 1 that will
revert to a 55 percent tax beyond the first $1 million of inheritance. Mr.
Obama is seeking a middle-ground 45 percent rate beyond $3.5 million, but some
Democrats from states with large farms and ranches favor lower estate taxes.
All of
these tax issues await some agreement on the core issue of marginal rates. And
a final accord on taxes rests on separate questions of spending being settled —
Republicans will not give further on raising revenues until they know what
Democrats will agree to by way of long-term reductions in spending for Medicare and other
fast-growing entitlement benefit programs.
By JACKIE CALMES, Published: December 8, 2012 in The New York Times
Thursday, October 25, 2012
Friday, October 19, 2012
Are You Trying to Confuse Us With the Data? --- Tax Cuts for Job Creators
Here's a data-driven article for those thoughtful individuals who won't let the data get in the way of preconceived notions ...
If the priority is to create a substantial number of jobs over the next presidential term, evidence from the last half-century strongly suggests that tax cuts for the top 5 percent (those with incomes above $200,000) won’t work. Rather, tax cuts for working families, tax cuts directly aimed at expanded hiring or increases in infrastructure investment would have much more bang for the buck and would cost much less in terms of forgone revenue and deficit reduction in the future.
By LAURA D'ANDREA TYSON and OWEN ZIDAR
economix.blogs.nytimes.com
October 19, 2012, 6:00 am
The centerpiece of
Mitt Romney's tax plan is an across-the-board 20 percent cut in marginal tax
rates. This cut, along with a few other tax changes Mr. Romney has endorsed -
such as repeal of the estate tax and the alternative minimum tax - would reduce
federal tax revenue from personal income and payroll taxes by an estimated $3.6 trillion to $3.8 trillion over 10 years.
The total is closer
to $5 trillion when Mr. Romney's proposed cut in the corporate
income tax rate to 25 percent is included. About two-thirds of this amount would go to taxpayers making
$200,000 a year or more - about 5 percent of all taxpayers.
Extending the Bush
tax cuts for high-income earners, as Mr. Romney proposes, adds another trillion in lost revenue and increases the share of
the benefits going to the top 5 percent. Even if the cost of the Romney tax
cuts for the top 5 percent is covered by base-broadening measures, as Mr. Romney
promises - but as President Obama and many others assert is mathematically impossible - does it make sense to
devote trillions of dollars to lowering income taxes for the top 5 percent? Is
this an effective way to create jobs?
Mr. Romney appears to think so. His plan rests on the assertion that
lower taxes for high-income taxpayers will increase economic activity and
employment - that lower taxes for job creators create jobs and will do so
quickly. This assertion, while superficially convincing and ideologically
compelling, is not supported by the evidence.
If tax cuts for high-income earners generate substantial real economic activity
and job creation, then we should expect to see two things in the data. First,
employment growth should be stronger in the years after tax cuts for these
earners. Second, parts of the country with a larger share of high-income
earners should experience stronger employment growth after national tax cuts
for these taxpayers, because the places where they live receive a larger share
of the national tax cuts.
What do we actually
see after combing through a half-century of economic data? Neither of these predictions
is borne out.
The graph below,
based on our research, shows the relationship between the cumulative
change in income and payroll tax liabilities for the top 5 percent over a
two-year period as a share of gross domestic product and employment growth in
the two years after the change.
The graph and the
regression analysis on which it is based reveal that there is no link between
income tax cuts for the top 5 percent and subsequent job creation. (We also
examined the relationship between tax cuts for the top 10 percent and
subsequent job creation and found the same result.)
The table below
highlights three of these tax changes -- the Reagan tax cut of 1982, the
Clinton tax increase of 1993 and the Bush tax cut of 2003 - and subsequent
employment growth. Strong employment growth followed the Reagan cut, but the
employment growth following the Clinton
tax increase exceeded the employment growth following the Bush tax cut, which
was comparable in size to the Reagan cut.
Job growth at the
state level after national tax cuts for high-income earners confirms the
absence of a strong link between such cuts and the pace of job creation in the
next two years.
The next graph shows
no substantial link between tax cuts for the top 10 percent and the pace of job
creation at the state level. Employment growth in states with a large share of
rich people, such as Connecticut or New Jersey, was not much faster, on
average, than it would have been otherwise after the Reagan and Bush tax cuts
for the top 10 percent and wasn't much slower, on average, after the Clinton
tax increase on this group.
If there really were
a strong link between job creation and tax cuts for high-income "job
creators," we should be able to see the effects somewhere. But we have
found no evidence that such cuts lead to substantially faster employment growth
at the national, state or even ZIP-code level.
Tax cuts for
everyone else are a much more effective path to job creation. Our research found
a statistically significant and positive relationship between tax cuts for the
bottom 95 percent and job growth at both the national and state levels. The
graph below shows the relationship for the national data. Our results indicate
that almost all of the stimulative effect of income and payroll tax cuts on job
creation in the short to medium run result from such cuts for the bottom 95
percent.
Lower-income
taxpayers spend a higher share of their tax cuts. Many of these taxpayers often
have more difficulty borrowing money and tapping into their housing wealth than
higher-income individuals. These demand-side
forces explain why consumption goes up much more after tax cuts for
the bottom 95 percent than after equivalently sized cuts for the top 5 percent.
An increase in consumption, which still accounts for about 70 percent of
G.D.P., fuels increases in demand, and that leads companies to create more
jobs. In survey after survey, businesses confirm that changes in demand are the
primary determinant of their employment decisions.
Investment also
increases after tax cuts for the bottom 95 percent, suggesting that shifting
moderately size tax cuts to the bottom 95 percent from the top 5 percent isn't
a zero-sum trade-off between consumption and investment.
Instead, an increase
in demand and economic activity because of an increase in consumption also
makes investment more attractive, especially in difficult economic conditions.
Over all, our research shows that tax cuts for the bottom 95 percent are
much more effective than tax cuts for the top 5 percent at increasing job
creation in the subsequent two years.
Other analysts reach
similar conclusions. For example, the Congressional Budget Office and Mark Zandi, Moody's chief economist, find that tax cuts for
lower-income recipients generate larger increases in employment per dollar cost
to the federal budget than comparable tax cuts for high-income taxpayers in the
short run.
What about the long
run? A recent report by the Congressional Research Service found no
clear relationship between cuts in marginal tax rates that primarily benefit
high-income taxpayers and economic growth and job creation. A recent review by three distinguished academic economists also
found no convincing evidence that real economic activity responds materially to
tax-rate changes on top income earners, although such rate changes do affect
their tax-avoidance behavior.
Cross-country comparisons also do not show a close link between top marginal
rates and growth. While these studies don't find large effects in the long run,
we note that these long-run effects are harder to measure and are thus more
uncertain.
Nevertheless, if the
priority is to create a substantial number of jobs over the next presidential
term, evidence from the last half-century strongly suggests that tax cuts for
the top 5 percent won't work. Tax cuts for working families, tax cuts directly
aimed at expanded hiring or increases in infrastructure investment would have
much more bang for the buck and would cost much less in terms of forgone
revenue and deficit reduction in the future.
With elevated
unemployment, weakness in Europe and slowing
growth in emerging economies, fiscal measures that actually increase economic
activity and employment in the near term are required. Our research shows that
tax cuts for the rich do not meet this standard.
Wednesday, October 17, 2012
Tuesday, October 16, 2012
Some Thoughtful Comments About Economic "Mojo"
Economics Nobel Laureate Michael Spence explains to WSJ Live’s Simon Constable what it will take for the U.S. to get back its economic mojo, plus why he favors Obama’s economic policy over Romney’s. (Please just ignore the commercial lead-in.)
Saturday, October 13, 2012
Einstein and "Insanity"
We've heard a lot of discussion about job growth during the Bush
Administration's years under its economic policies (including deregulation and
lower taxes for "job creators"). Many of those same policies are currently
being touted by the Romney/Ryan team as the "be all and end all"
for continued economic recovery and growth. But a close look at the data
suggest that the years of lower taxes and less regulation (particularly with
respect to the financial services industry) didn't, in the past, bring the
nirvana the Republicans now say will occur with the same lower tax and
deregulation policies. As Albert Einstein has been credited as saying,
"Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different
results."
The chart below shows the non-farm jobs growth under Clinton (when taxes were higher), Bush (with lower taxes and less regulation) and Obama (with continued lower taxes and less regulation in the early period of his administration) ...
The chart below shows the non-farm jobs growth under Clinton (when taxes were higher), Bush (with lower taxes and less regulation) and Obama (with continued lower taxes and less regulation in the early period of his administration) ...
Saturday, October 6, 2012
Is Mr. Romney a Candidate Worthy of the American Electorate's Trust?
The American people should expect their Presidential candidates to abide by some basic ethical rules (such as honesty) in the quest to be the leader of this Country. However, it seems Mr. Romney is either clueless as to what the truth really is, or worse, ethically challenged and intentionally lying in this campaign. Now is the time for the American electorate to consider Mr. Romney's character and decide if his lack of truthfulness (no matter the reason) disqualifies him to become POTUS.
In this regard, consider the following ...
From Joe Conason (editor in chief of NationalMemo.com) ...
And from Steve Benen (political writer and blogger), who chronicles the various misstatements (now at 50!) of Mr. Romney ...
In this regard, consider the following ...
From Joe Conason (editor in chief of NationalMemo.com) ...
- “It’s not easy to debate a liar,” complained an email from one observer of the first presidential debate – and there was no question about which candidate he meant. Prevarication, falsification, fabrication are all familiar tactics that have been employed by Mitt Romney without much consequence to him ever since he entered public life, thanks to the inviolable taboo in the mainstream media against calling out a liar (unless, of course, he lies about sex).
- Yes, President Obama ought to have been better prepared for Romney’s barrage of blather and bull. The Republican’s own chief advisor, Eric Fehrnstrom, had glibly described the “Etch-a-Sketch” strategy they would deploy in the general election, to make swing voters forget the “severe conservative” of the primaries. Romney executed that pivot on Wednesday night, but he could do so only by spouting literally dozens of provably fraudulent assertions — which various diligent fact-checkers proceeded to debunk.
"I think [President Obama]
was so surprised, he thought Romney was just flat-out lying."
1. In reference to the unemployment
rate, Romney said, "The reason it's come down this year is primarily due
to the fact that more and more people have just stopped looking for work."
2. On Fox News last night, Romney
said in reference to the president, "[W]hat I find so offensive about his
tax plan is by raising taxes on small business, as he does, he will kill
jobs."
In reality, Obama has repeatedly
cut taxes on small businesses -- by some counts, 18 times -- and if given a
second term, his tax plan would have no effect on 97% of small businesses.
3. Speaking yesterday at the
Colorado Conservative Political Action Committee Conference, Romney said,
"this sequestration idea ... came out of the White House."
No, it didn't.
This sequestration idea emanated from House Republicans.
4. In the same speech, Romney said
Obama "spending more and more, borrowing more and more, putting us on a
road to Greece ."
5. In Wednesday night's debate,
Romney said, "I don't have a $5 trillion tax cut. I don't have a tax cut
of a scale that you're talking about."
Independent analysts determined
the proposed across-the-board rate cut would cost $5 trillion.
6. Romney said, "I'm not going
to reduce the share of taxes paid by high-income people. High-income people are
doing just fine in this economy."
That's not true. The wealthy would
receive a massive, disproportionate tax break
under the Romney plan.
7. Romney said, "[G]asoline
prices have doubled under the president."
To blame gas prices on the
president's policies is ridiculously
untrue.
8. Romney said, "I'm not going
to cut education funding. I don't have any plan to cut education funding and
grants that go to people going to college."
9. Romney argued, "Energy is
critical, and the president pointed out correctly that production of oil and
gas in the U.S.
is up. But not due to his policies. In spite of his policies. Mr. President,
all of the increase in natural gas and oil has happened on private land, not on
government land."
10. On taxes, Romney said, "I do
want to reduce the burden being paid by middle-income Americans. And to do that
that also means that I cannot reduce the burden paid by high-income
Americans."
This is ridiculously
untrue (and more than a little incoherent).
11. On taxes, Romney argued, "I
will not reduce the share paid by high-income individuals. I -- I know that you
and your running mate keep saying that, and I know it's a popular things to say
with a lot of people, but it's just not the case."
Yes, it is the case.
12. Romney said, "I will not
reduce the taxes paid by high-income Americans."
That's slightly different than the
other lie. It's also equally wrong.
13. Romney said, "I will not,
under any circumstances, raise taxes on middle-income families." He cited
"six studies" to back him up on this.
There's ample evidence that Romney
will have no choice but to raise taxes on middle-income families and the six
studies don't back him up.
14. Romney said, "I saw a study
that came out today that said you're going to raise taxes by 3 to $4,000 on middle-income
families."
The study is wrong, and that's not what
it said.
15. Romney said on tax rates,
"Mr. President, you're absolutely right, which is that with regards to 97
percent of the businesses are not taxed at the 35 percent tax rate, they're
taxed at a lower rate. But those businesses that are in the last 3 percent of
businesses happen to employ half -- half -- of all of the people who work in small
business."
That's a new one. It's also not true.
16. Romney said, "[Y]our plan is
to take the tax rate on successful small businesses from 35 percent to 40
percent. The National Federation of Independent Businesses has said that will
cost 700,000 jobs."
17. Romney said, "What things
would I cut from spending? Well, first of all, I will eliminate all programs by
this test -- if they don't pass it: Is the program so critical it's worth
borrowing money from China
to pay for it? And if not, I'll get rid of it."
The implication here is that U.S. debt is financed by the Chinese, but this
isn't true -- China
only holds about 8%
of the nation's debt.
18. In reference to how he'd balance
the budget, Romney said he'll "get rid of" the Affordable Care Act.
This is incoherent and absurd.
"Obamacare" cuts the deficit
to the tune of about $109 billion over the next decade. It's simply incoherent
to say you'll cut the deficit by eliminating a law, which would in turn
increase the deficit. That's like promising to put out a fire by using more
kerosene.
19. Romney said, "The president
said he'd cut the deficit in half. Unfortunately, he doubled it."
Maybe Romney doesn't know what
"double" means. The deficit on Obama's first day was $1.3 trillion.
Last year, it was also $1.3 trillion. This year, it's projected to be $1.1
trillion. When he says the president "more than doubled" the deficit,
as he has many times, Romney's lying.
20. Romney argued, "The
president's put in place as much public debt, almost as much debt held by the
public as all prior presidents combined."
He's said this before, but it's not even close
to being true.
21. On subsidies, Romney said to the
president, "[Y]ou say Exxon and Mobil -- actually, this $2.8 billion goes
largely to small companies, to drilling operators and so forth."
Nice try, but no.
22. Romney said to Obama,
"[Y[ou put $90 billion -- like 50 years' worth of breaks -- into solar and
wind."
That's not quite right,
and much of the $90 billion was appropriated by George W. Bush,
not Obama.
23. Romney argued to the president,
"[Y]ou said you get a deduction for getting a plant overseas. Look, I've
been in business for 25 years. I have no idea what you're talking about."
Romney's admitted cluelessness
notwithstanding, he's simply wrong to argue the tax deduction doesn't exist. It's real.
24. On entitlements, Romney argued,
"[N]either the president nor I are proposing any changes for any current
retirees or near retirees, either to Social Security or Medicare. So if you're
60 or around 60 or older, you don't need to listen any further."
That's demonstrably
wrong. Under Romney's policy, the cost of prescription drug
prices and preventive care for seniors would go up immediately -- for current
and future retirees. For that matter, since Romney's plan hastens Medicare's
insolvency -- soon -- seniors should listen closely.
25. Defending his Medicare plan,
Romney said the idea originated in part with Paul Ryan and Sen. Ron Wyden
(D-Ore.), "who's a co-author of the bill."
According to Ron Wyden, that's ridiculously
untrue.
26. In reference to Dodd-Frank,
Romney said, "[I]t designates a number of banks as too big to fail, and
they're effectively guaranteed by the federal government. This is the biggest
kiss that's been given to New York
banks I've ever seen. This is an enormous boon for them.... I wouldn't
designate five banks as too big to fail and give them a blank check."
This simply has no basis in fact.
27. In reference to Wall Street
reform, Romney said, "It wasn't thought through properly.... [I]t's
killing regional and small banks.
28. In reference to the Affordable
Care Act, Romney said, "It cuts $716 billion from Medicare to pay for it.
I want to put that money back in Medicare for our seniors."
As I suspect Romney knows -- he'd
already endorsed these same cuts earlier in the year -- he's just not telling
the truth.
29. In the next breath, Romney says
of the health care law, "[I]t puts in place an unelected board that's
going to tell people, ultimately, what kind of treatments they can have."
This is getting awfully close to
the "death panel" argument, and it's not true.
30. Romney vowed to "sit down
with Democratic leaders as well as Republican leaders -- as we did in my
state."
That's wildly misleading. In his
one term, Romney issued more than 800 vetoes, over 700 of which were
overridden, and demonstrated a "relative
disinterest in bipartisan collaboration."
31. According to Romney,
congressional Republicans unveiled a "bipartisan" health care reform
plan in 2010. "It was swept aside."
There was no "bipartisan
plan" from GOP lawmakers. Romney just made this up.
32. Asked what he would replace the
Affordable Care Act with, Romney's exact words were, "Let, well, actually,
actually it's , it's, it's a lengthy description."
That's a lie. Romney's online
description of his health care reform plan is just 369 words.
33. Romney said, "Pre-existing
conditions are covered under my plan."
I really wish that were true. It's not.
34. Romney, offering
"proof" that the president's agenda is "not working," said,
"23 million people are out of work."
That's not true. As of the time of
the debate, there were 12.5 million Americans unemployed.
35. In reference to public support
for green-energy companies, Romney argued, "These businesses, many of them
have gone out of business. I think about half of them, of the ones have been
invested in, they've gone out of business."
As Romney's own aides later
admitted, this is demonstrably
false.
36. In a TV campaign ad released this
week, Romney said "Obama and the liberals already have ... raised taxes on
the middle class."
That's obviously untrue; Obama has
repeatedly cut taxes on the middle class. In fact, Romney admitted as much
just last week.
37. In the same ad, Romney accused
Obama of creating "government-run health care."
As Romney knows -- his own state
health care law served as the blueprint for the president's plan -- the
Affordable Care Act relies on private insurers, and is not "government-run
health care."
38. The same ad claims consumers will
be forced to "pay more for your medicine."
Actually, the only change in the
cost of medication came for seniors -- and "Obamacare" closes the
donut hole to make sure they pay less, not more.
39. The commercial goes on to say the
Affordable Care Act "includes a trillion dollars in higher taxes -- even
on the middle class."
This is apparently in reference to
the individual mandate. And if the claim is true, then Romney's Massachusetts law also includes
higher taxes -- even on the middle class.
40. In his weekly podcast, Romney
said Obama's vision of international affairs is premised on seeing the United States
"as merely one among many nations rather than as an exceptional
nation."
Obama is the only president in
American history to publicly and
explicitly endorse the principle of American exceptionalism.
41. Romney also argued "our
moral standing has declined" around the globe.
No, it hasn't. Respect and support
for the United States
around the world has improved
under Obama.
42. Romney went on to say Obama no
longer supports "standing with Israel ."
43. Romney also said the president
"refuses to meet with Israel 's
prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu."
Obama has met with Netanyahu many times.
44. He went on to say, hoping to draw
a contrast with the president, "I will never apologize for America ."
How is it possible the whole "apology" lie hasn't
gone away yet?
45. At a campaign event in Wayne , Pennsylvania ,
Romney said the president is "planning on cutting our military by about a
trillion dollars over the next decade."
No, he's not. Obama is planning to
cut defense spending, on the recommendation of the Pentagon and the Joint
Chiefs, by about $500 billion over the next decade. There are other cuts
looming, but they were crafted by
Romney's party and endorsed by his own running mate.
46. At the same event, Romney argued,
"[T]he president adds about a trillion dollars a year to the national
debt."
It's true that in recent years,
about a trillion dollars a year to the national debt, but it's not the
president who's doing it.
47. Romney went on to say, "Do
you realize that our Navy is smaller in terms of the number of ships than any
time since 1917?"
This one again? Romney dropped this lie
a while back, but it's apparently made a comeback.
48. Romney also vowed, "I will
not raise taxes on middle-income Americans."
There's ample evidence that Romney
will raise taxes
on the middle class.
49. Romney went on to promise,
"I've got a plan. I've got a plan to help free people pursue their dreams
and get this economy going. And the good news is this: It'll create 12 million
jobs."
Putting aside the pesky detail
that Romney doesn't actually have a specific jobs plan, the fact remains that
if we do nothing, we're on track to create 12 million
new American jobs over the next four years anyway.
50. Romney added, "I want to
take that big cloud off of the small business world that's hanging over them.
Three-quarters of them say they don't want to hire more people because of this
cloud and that cloud is Obamacare."
Romney's referring to a
"survey" conducted by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce if its members.
The claim, however, is a misleading joke -- the Chamber, a pro-Republican
lobbying institution heavily invested in helping Romney, put up an unscientific
online survey. Treating this as a legitimate poll of businesses is
fundamentally dishonest.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)