Mitt Romney actually said that. Well, no, the president didn’t cut the deficit in half. And he hasn’t doubled it. Obviously. Romney lied again. Actually, the president is on course to erasing the entire deficit by 2017, according to the Congressional Budget Office. The 2017 budget deficit, which will reflect President Obama’s final spending requests (a similar dynamic to Bush’s last deficit of 2009), could end up being zero.
Conversely, the Tax Policy Center reported that the Romney tax plan would explode the deficit by nearly $3 trillion over ten years. And that doesn’t even take into consideration the reversal of the president’s deficit cutting policies like the Affordable Care Act, or another recession, or whatever Romney decides to do in Iran.
Romney is either incapable of telling the truth, or he has no intelligence to evaluate the numbers showing how things really are. Or… he is under the thumb of the not-running Republican managers and Super Pacs that are spending millions to show Obama in a false light.
It’s up to all of us to make sure the REAL TRUTH gets out and that Karl Rove, Ricketts, The Koch Brothers and all their rich buddies are dipped in wax and burned like candles.
Do not, PLEASE, do not just ignore them and let it rest. Even if you are upset with SOME things Obama has done, who do you think is more likely to change over the next four years? Republicans?
Not a chance.
- “Out Of Egypt, Into The Red Sea”: Romney’s Cowardly Speech On The Deficit (mykeystrokes.com)
- The Romney Con (themoderatevoice.com)
- Mitt Romney rumbles through Florida, raising cash and bashing President Barack … (miamiherald.com)
- Romney, GOP try to shift focus to deficit (politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com)
- Mitt Romney Doesn’t Remember What He Said, But Stands By ‘Whatever it Was’ [Video] (gawker.com)
- Romney’s Budget Fairy Tale (nymag.com)
- When Mitt ridiculed Clinton (salon.com)
- The Romney con (prairieweather.typepad.com)
Some excerpts on his commentary on the Supreme Court vs. the Health Care legislation:
Three days of Supreme Court arguments over the health-care law demonstrated for all to see that conservative justices are prepared to act as an alternative legislature, diving deeply into policy details as if they were members of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee.
Senator, excuse me, Justice Samuel Alito quoted Congressional Budget Office figures on Tuesday to talk about the insurance costs of the young. On Wednesday, Chief Justice John Roberts sounded like the House whip in discussing whether parts of the law could stand if other parts fell. He noted that without various provisions, Congress “wouldn’t have been able to put together, cobble together, the votes to get it through.” Tell me again, was this a courtroom or a lobbyist’s office?
It fell to the court’s liberals — the so-called “judicial activists,” remember? — to remind their conservative brethren that legislative power is supposed to rest in our government’s elected branches.
The irony is that if the court’s conservatives overthrow the mandate, they will hasten the arrival of a more government-heavy system. Justice Anthony Kennedy even hinted that it might be more “honest” if government simply used “the tax power to raise revenue and to just have a national health service, single-payer.” Remember those words.
…a court that gave us Bush vs. Gore and Citizens United will prove conclusively that it sees no limits on its power, no need to defer to those elected to make our laws. A Supreme Court that is supposed to give us justice will instead deliver ideology.
See what I mean. Clear and concise with an ability to combine seriousness with humor. After all, we have to live with this stuff.
Read the whole column HERE.
- Supreme Court says jail strip searches after minor offenses are allowed (pennlive.com)
- Dionne v. The Supreme Court on Obamacare (nationalinterest.org)
- Will a Tea Party Supreme Court guarantee Obama a second term? (kaystreet.wordpress.com)
- If the Health Law Is Struck Down… (themoderatevoice.com)
- “An Alternative Legislature”: Judicial Activists In The Supreme Court (mykeystrokes.com)
- Activist Judges On Trial (themoderatevoice.com)
In an article called “More good news about the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare): CBO says it will save money“, Millard Fillmore’s Bathtub (a great blog, btw) brings one of the most important results of “Obamacare” to plain view: The Congressional Budget Office shows it will save money:
Remember, without the Affordable Care Act, the U.S. was experiencing health care cost inflation of about 15%annually.
You might not know it if you read conservative blogs, watch Fox News, or listen to the Republican candidates for president — all of whom seem to have their fact panties on wrong — but the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projects the bill will reduce federal spending, still, even after accounting for recent changes in law and changes in the economy that will increase costs of the bill’s provisions.
Yeah, Obamacare saves money.
The new law will not eliminate the problem of people not having insurance coverage to guarantee access to health care, a sad result of Republican efforts to cut the bill’s effectiveness. But it’s a great first step to making America better, healthier, and economically more sound.
I guess you haven’t heard about the savings of the ACA from the garbage the Repiglicants are spreading in their goal to have the Supreme Court tear it down.
Now, certainly, the ACA could have been better… it could have been a single payer program which would have wiped the greed of insurance companies off the dish, leaving us with security for all.
Perhaps this could happen in a second Obama term. If he doesn’t make it in… if the Dems don’t retake the House and hold onto the Senate, we’ll probably never know.
If you’re an aging diabetic like me, with an increasing dependance on Medicare and, possibly, Medicaid, you will have a certain view of the efforts to kill ACA. If you are not, or are not related to someone who is, consider yourself very lucky (and probably in the minority.)
- CBO: The Affordable Care Act Will Save Even More Money Than We Thought (duanegraham.wordpress.com)
- The Truth About Affordable Care Act Costs (alan.com)
- GOP’s Distortion Of New CBO Estimate Exposes The Weakness Of Their Arguments Against Health Reform (thinkprogress.org)
- Updated Estimates for the Insurance Coverage Provisions of the Affordable Care Act (bespacific.com)
- CBO Update Shows Lower Costs for the New Health Care Law (whitehouse.gov)
- GOP Determined to Spoil ObamaCare’s Birthday (pjmedia.com)
- Romney Celebrates Health Care Reform Anniversary By Lying About It (thinkprogress.org)
- Why Seniors Could Pay $5,900 More for Health Care Under the Republican Budget (thinkprogress.org)
If you heard the Speaker make hos speech the other day then you know he is insisting on spending cuts before the debt ceiling can be raised. He is also pushing the classic Republican point of view on cutting taxes on the rich because they will invest in American jobs. Of course they haven’t in the last couple of years as their taxes were slashed.
Perhaps Boehner is not aware that the “trickle-down theory” didn’t work for Reagan or either one of the Bushes. Republicans have limited historic vision… primarily because it is the multimillionaires that provide their funds.
As James Rowley and Mike Dorning said on Bloomberg this morning:
“Boehner’s statement in his Wall Street speech that government spending ‘is crowding out private investment and threatening the availability of capital’ runs counter to the behavior of credit markets… Boehner also said the 2009 stimulus program ‘hampered job creation in our country,’ a view at odds with the Congressional Budget Office‘s findings last August. The stimulus package increased the number of people employed by between 1.4 million and 3.3 million and cut unemployment by between 0.7 percentage point and 1.8 percentage point, according to CBO.”
“Even more alarming, because it has consequences beyond the debt-ceiling debate, is the incoherent, impervious-to-facts economic philosophy undergirding Boehner’s remarks.”
- Boehner Speaks On Debt Ceiling (npr.org)
- Rep. John Boehner holding America hostage over debt ceiling and spending cuts (crooksandliars.com)
- Rep. John Boehner Tells TODAY: Tax Increases Are ‘Off The Table’ (mediaite.com)
- Boehner contradicts self on debt limit, criticizes Bush Treasury secretary (americablog.com)
- Speaker Boehner: Tax hikes are ‘off the table’ (seattletimes.nwsource.com)
- Dear John (duanegraham.wordpress.com)
I picked this up over at BuzzFlash:
Let Congress Test Out Paul Ryan‘s Medicare Plan on Themselves and Their Families: That Would Kill It Right Quick
by MARK KARLIN, EDITOR FOR BUZZFLASH AT TRUTHOUT
Doesn’t budget control begin at home?
And if Paul Ryan’s Medicare plan is so terrific, why don’t Ryan and other Congressional supporters of his budget immediately pass a bill that will replace their health care benefits with the Ryan plan?
In fact, why not run a test program with the Koch brothers, members of their Americans for Prosperity and elderly Tea Party supporters? All of them should volunteer to immediately go on the Ryan Medicare, drastically limited “voucher program” – which would leave a high percentage of seniors unable to afford medical insurance – as sort of a test model of Ryan’s plans for privatizing and shrinking Medicare.
Then we can see the actual results of a plan that would raise health care costs by adding the profits of corporations and administrative costs to Medicare, while drastically reducing benefits due to the small amount of money allocated to vouchers for each senior – and the for-profit insurance industry profit motivation to deny as much care as possible.
If Ryan is the “visionary” much of the corporate media makes him out to be, let Americans see his “vision” actualized by a trial implementation of his proposed program.
Let Ryan be the first volunteer, after he cuts his pay, pension and other Congressional benefits.
So what do you think? Any chance Ryan and his buddies will take Mark Karlin up on this one?
- Paul Ryan Misrepresents the “Mandate” in His Medicare Voucher Plan, Again (my.firedoglake.com)
- Paul Ryan admits there’s an “individual mandate” in his budget plan (crooksandliars.com)
- Why Democrats focus on Medicare, not Medicaid (msnbc.msn.com)
- Paul Ryan’s “Serious” Plan to Destroy Medicare (slog.thestranger.com)
- “Paul Ryan Isn’t Exactly Miss Popularity Any Longer Inside The House GOP Caucus” and related posts (downwithtyranny.blogspot.com)
- Selling Medicare Reform (aleksandreia.wordpress.com)
- Polls Show Dangers For GOP In Pushing Ryan’s Medicare Privatization Plan (tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com)
So let’s see…the Republicans want to cut the deficit, but they also want t0 repeal Health Care at a deficit cost of $230 Billion…
The Congressional Budget Office, which is not affiliated with either Party, released a report today on the effects that repeal of the Health Care law will be a major deficit pig.
This from HuffPo:
- Fresh ammo – CBO: Repeal would pile on deficit (politico.com)
- CBO: GOP Health Care Repeal Adds $230 Billion to Deficit (crooksandliars.com)
- CBO: Health reform repeal would add $230 billion to deficit by 2021 (dailykos.com)
- The CBO tells Republicans what they don’t want to hear (washingtonmonthly.com)
- Health care repeal’s cost: $230 billion to deficit (money.cnn.com)
…picked up from John Case’s socialist-economics mailing group:
People before Profits: Sound bites about jobs
In my home state of Connecticut, I am bombarded with ads from businesswoman Linda McMahon. She has already spent over $24 million of her huge fortune in an effort to capture Connecticut’s open Senate seat. McMahon’s rhetoric echoes fellow Republicans around the country who say: “Government doesn’t create jobs. Small business creates jobs. Cut job-killing government spending. And Cancel the stimulus.”
This article will examine some of these sound bytes.
When does small business creates jobs?
The Republicans are fond of saying that small business creates 70 percent of all jobs. They don’t tell you that small business is also responsible for 70 percent of all layoffs. That’s the nature of small
business. They start up and go out of business all the time.
When businesses, small or large, hire more workers they have more customers. If customers are cutting back, business cuts back. It’s that simple.
Don’t take my word for it. The National Federation of Independent Business asked its members, “What is your single most important problem?” The answer was not taxes, not unions, not labor, not government red tape. The biggest problem for small business is poor sales — not enough customers! And there are no customers because we are all broke, unemployed, drowning in mortgage and credit card debt.
When union’s workers are able to win higher wages, their income flows back into the local economy. Yes, unions are good for small, local business!
But the fastest way to create jobs in the private sector is to increase government spending.
Unemployment compensation, food stamps and other safety net programs are immediately spent at the local supermarket, gas station, and other businesses. A study by the Congressional Budget Office found this kind of government spending among the most effective in creating jobs!
Government spending on infrastructure, education, and medical care helps the businesses that supply these industries. And government workers’ paychecks are also spent supporting businesses in the local and national economy.
McMahon and Republicans are against government spending and against unions. So they are really against small business and small business job creation.
Is government spending evil?
McMahon’s TV ads say, “Cut job-killing government spending.” This makes no sense at all. Almost every dollar spent by the government creates jobs.
The federal, state or local governments directly employ more than one of every six workers at 17 percent. And for every worker with a government paycheck, another worker is employed by a private business selling supplies or services to the government, or providing the things the workers buy with their paychecks.
Since January 2009, the economic crisis has caused state and local governments to cut employment by 397,000. Without the federal funds provided by the stimulus, those job losses would have been more than double. McMahon and the Republicans want to cut the stimulus, throwing hundreds of thousands of teachers, police and firefighters out of work, and forcing states and cities to raise taxes or cut services.
The final piece of economic nonsense is the claim that eliminating the federal deficit is the biggest priority, and that deep spending cuts will somehow help the economy. Most of the media accept this as self-evident. But it is wrong.
Linda McMahon, like most Republican candidates, refuses to say what programs she would cut to eliminate the deficit. But The Center for Budget and Policy Priorities calculates that the Republican plan to cut the Federal budget to 2008 levels would force a 20 percent reduction in
non-defense discretionary spending. Biomedical research would be crippled. Local schools, already hard hit, would see federal funds disappear. Local taxes would rise. Hundreds of thousands of jobs would disappear. The Republican plan could easily throw the economy back into the free fall that President Obama inherited in January 2009.
Deficits don’t kill jobs. Spending cuts kill jobs.
McMahon actually supports two big budget-busters: the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the Bush tax cuts for the rich. But the biggest cause of the deficit is the recession itself — unemployed workers and closed businesses don’t pay taxes. Spending for necessary, productive purposes today will help revive the economy and make it possible to cut deficits in the future.
Between two and five million people have jobs or increased hours today because of the stimulus bill, according to the Congressional Budget Office. But stimulus funds are running out, and those jobs will start to disappear in the next months. The best hope for jobs, both public and private sector, is extending and increasing stimulus measures. Enacting President Obama’s $50 billion infrastructure proposal, and the Local Jobs for America Act which funds state and local governments, would be important first steps. That won’t be possible if Republicans like Linda McMahon, with their job-killing priorities, win in November.
- Blumenthal, McMahon Debate Again; Voters Turned Off (newyork.cbslocal.com)
- Connecticut’s Senate Race: McMahon vs. Blumenthal (time.com)
- Conn. Senate debate focus: trust, jobs, wrestling (sfgate.com)