LETTER: Both candidates speak deceitTo the Telegram: Obama confronted Romney during the Oct. 3 debate about how he would achieve a revenue-neutral budget including large cuts, without shifting the burden off of upper income earners onto the middle class, and without raising anyone’s taxes or giving disproportionate advantages to the wealthy?
To the Telegram:
Obama confronted Romney during the Oct. 3 debate about how he would achieve a revenue-neutral budget including large cuts, without shifting the burden off of upper income earners onto the middle class, and without raising anyone’s taxes or giving disproportionate advantages to the wealthy?
Romney answered that his budget would also take in the same amount — “when you account for growth.”
To this end he proposed cutting any program that has to be paid for by borrowing money from China, and by making reductions in tax rates while simultaneously broadening the tax base. However, FactCheck.org reported that the Tax Policy Center —after considering all of Romney’s priorities for achieving this enlightened neutral rate, concluded that it would be mathematically impossible. Out of the six different studies that Romney said agreed with his plan, none could be reasonably described as non-partisan, and two, were nothing but blog items written by Romney supporters. Only one study, done by Princeton economics Professor Harvey Rosen, the former chair of President G.W. Bush’s Council of Economic Advisers, concluded that Romney’s plan could work if we achieved a consistent 3 percent “growth effect.” But the FactCheck people called this, “an extremely aggressive assumption” considering that during only two of GW Bush’s eight years, did the GDP grow at that rate — averaging only 2 percent overall. Remember also, the Bush tax cuts directly reduced the tax burden without accompanying measures to broaden the tax base, such as those included in Romney’s plan — indicating that Romney would be even less likely to achieve the targeted growth rate.
I would say that another of Romney’s most creative lies has to do with the individual payment advisory board, which Romney denounces as another example of federal big brother’s intrusion into all of our lives, threatening to dictate treatments or to ration care. Once again, utter baloney.
The board is really prohibited from doing any of these things under the rule of law.
The board is concerned primarily with finding savings for Medicare Advantage part B, skilled nursing homes, home health, dialysis, ambulatory medical surgical services and medical equipment, so it is really devised as an aid to Medicare, and cannot do the horrible things to general health care coverage Republicans continue to lie about. The IPAB consists of 15 members including medical professionals, health care experts and consumer representatives, but it does not have the power to dictate, how, when or where we receive medical treatment.
One of the most offensive lies that Romney reiterated during the debates, is that Democrats are “taking’ $716 billion out of the Medicare fund, in order to pay for Obamacare.
Just not true.
This figure only represents savings over ten years that come from increasing efficiency and eliminating unnecessary financial waste. It does not reduce the amounts received by beneficiaries, and the CBO continues to state it will extend the life and solvency of the Medicare Part B trust fund over the next 10 years.
The real kicker is Ryan and Romney have virtually the same provisions in their health care plan, and virtually for the same reason.
Along with other falsehoods originating from the Romney camp, fact-finding organizations like FactCheck.org and Politico, continue to refute many claims made by President Obama also. So, if you care about being informed and about receiving real information, I suggest that you frequently visit them.
During the debates Obama repeatedly failed to pick up the bait and engage in angry and petty word fights that, if heatedly argued, could only waste the precious time needed for discussing all of the extremely important points needing inclusion in a productive debate.
The President, by refusing to play, ensured that we would all benefit by hearing some of the political and philosophical issues that truly distinguish both candidates from one another — much wiser than just engaging in a shouting match about who is most to blame for blaming the other the most.
Thank God for the tolerant and reasoning mind of the president.
Peter W. Johnson,