Mitt Romney: How Can Any SANE Person Vote For Him?
ROMNEY LIES ABOUT OBAMA'S CONTRIBUTION TO THE DEBT
Mitt Romney claimed,
repeatedly, that President Obama has increased the national debt "more
than all other president combined". This insulting lie is also easy to
shoot down. The evidence presented here is conclusive: the huge burden of debt
we are laboring under is the DIRECT result of excessive tax cuts for Mittens
and his cronies and the fall of revenues brought about by the Great Recession,
a recession that is DIRECTLY the fault of predators and thieves like Mitt
Romney. Oh, and the president who DID rack up almost as much debt as all other
presidents combined? It was George W.
national debt is a little over $15 trillion. It stood at almost $12 trillion as
of 30 September 2009, the end of Bush's last budget. Romney's statement that
Obama has increased the debt more than all other presidents put together is not
simply a lie.
Here is a video of Mitt Romney talking about taxes.
here's a chart showing the impact of Mitt Romney's new tax proposals:
At the same time, he’d end President Obama’s 2009
stimulus tax reductions, including Obama’s more generous versions of the child
tax credit and earned income credit—both aimed at helping low-income working
families. He’d also repeal the tax increases included in the 2010 health reform
law. But Romney doesn’t stop there. He’d make capital
gains, dividends, and interest income tax-free for those making less than
$200,000 and repeal the estate tax (though he’d retain the gift tax). He’d cut the corporate rate from 35 percent to 25
percent, make the research and experimentation tax credit permanent, and
temporarily allow firms to continue to write-off the full cost of capital
investment as soon as they acquire the property. Multinationals would get a
temporary tax holiday for overseas profits they bring back to the U.S. Compared to current law, about 44 percent of those
making between $10,000 and $20,000 would get a tax cut that would average about
$274. No one in that income group would pay more, but more than half would see
no change in their tax bill. Nearly all middle-income households would get a tax
reduction. Among those making $50,000 to $75,000, the average tax cut would be
But much of the largess goes to those with the
highest-incomes. Households making more than $1 million would get an average
tax cut of almost $300,000, largely because, as owners of capital, they’d
receive the bulk of the benefit of Romney’s very generous corporate tax
reductions. While those making $1 million-plus pay about 20 percent of all
federal taxes, they’d receive more than 28 percent of Romney’s tax cuts. The story is a bit different if you start by
assuming the Bush/Obama tax cuts are made permanent. Compared to that already-generous law, the average
tax cut for all households shrinks from $3,500 to about $1,000 and a sizable
number of low-income families would see their taxes go up. For instance, about 15 percent of those in the
$10,000 to $20,000 income group would get an average tax cut of about $140, but
20 percent would get hit with an average tax increase of $1,000, mostly because
Romney would bring back the less generous versions of those refundable child
and earned income credits. Almost everyone who makes
more than $1 million would get a tax cut averaging roughly $150,000. As a
group, they’d receive nearly half the benefit of Romney’s tax plan.
Romneys lies about President Obama so called apology tour!
“The president went about this all wrong. He went around the world and
apologized for America. He addressed the United Nations in his inaugural
address and chastised our friend, Israel, for building settlements, and said
nothing about Hamas launching thousands of rockets into Israel.” — Romney
Regarding the supposed apology, we have repeatedly
called this out as a Four-Pinocchio falsehood. [That's the worst level.]
A careful review of all of Obama’s overseas statements found that they
had been taken out of context or had been misquoted. Frequently, Obama
expressed sentiments not much different than George W. Bush on overseas
Early in his presidency, Obama often tried to draw a
rhetorical distinction between his policies and Bush’s policies, a common
practice when the presidency changes parties. The shift in policies, in fact,
might have been more dramatic from Bill Clinton to Bush than from Bush to
Obama, given how Obama has largely maintained Bush’s approach to fighting
terrorism. Meanwhile, Romney is right that Obama did not
mention Hamas by name in his first speech to the United Nations, but Obama did
glancingly refer to the rocket attacks: “It’s [the price of no peace] not paid
by politicians. It’s paid by the Israeli girl in Sderot who closes her eyes in
fear that a rocket will take her life in the middle of the night. It’s paid for
by the Palestinian boy in Gaza who has no clean water and no country to call
his own.” As to whether Obama chastised Israel, that’s an
opinion. Obama certainly did not do that this week, [September 2011] instead
offering fulsome praise. We recently reviewed all three of Obama’s speeches at
the United Nations, and how much his language has shifted.
However, months earlier in 2009, Obama did speak
about Hamas (though not the rocket attacks) in his famous speech to the Arab
world in Cairo. One could argue the reference in this speech may have had more
impact than one at the United Nations. Here’s what Obama said: “Now is the time for
Palestinians to focus on what they can build. The Palestinian Authority must
develop its capacity to govern, with institutions that serve the needs of its
people. Hamas does have support among some Palestinians, but they also have
responsibilities. To play a role in fulfilling Palestinian aspirations, and to
unify the Palestinian people, Hamas must put an end to violence, recognize past
agreements, and recognize Israel’s right to exist.”
Mitt Romney lies on his father and Martin Luther King!
blames President Obama for all jobs lost in the recession!
Romney is, in effect,
blaming Obama for things that happened BEFORE
OBAMA WAS EVEN PRESIDENT. Astonishingly, Romney is blaming the 3.6
million job losses in 2008 on Barack Obama! The Great Recession, which was
caused by thieves, grifters, con artists, liars, and predators like Mitt
Romney, is the direct cause of the nation's dire job situation. Moreover,
Romney is attributing every job lost in the first four months of 2009 to
Obama--before Obama's stimulus program could take effect. The statement
"25 million people are out of work because of Barack Obama"
rivals Sarah Palin's vicious lie that President Obama's health care law was
going let handicapped children die. It is, in fact, one of the most brazen lies
ever told in an American political campaign. The truth of the matter--which is
180 degrees away from what Romney is saying
[From December 2011]: The U.S. private
sector has now added 1.67 million jobs in 2011, well ahead of last year’s
private-sector total of 1.2 million, and the best year for businesses since
2006. Since March 2010, American businesses have created 2.9 million jobs.
This remarkable graphic bears scrutiny as well. The lines below the 0 level
represent job losses in one month, those above represent gains. Red is for
Bush, blue for Obama. Click to enlarge it--and see the depth of Romney's lies:
And as for Romney's claim
that at Bain Capital he added 100,000 new jobs, The Washington Post had this to say:
Fehrnstrom says the 100,000 figure stems from
the growth in jobs from three companies that Romney helped to start or grow
while at Bain Capital: Staples (a gain of 89,000 jobs), The Sports Authority
(15,000 jobs), and Domino’s (7,900 jobs).
his tally obviously does not include job losses
from other companies with which Bain Capital was involved — and are based on
current employment figures, not the period when Romney worked at Bain. (Indeed,
Romney made his comments in response to a former employee of American Pad &
Paper Co. who says he lost his job after Bain Capital took it private.)
As we have explored before, we can neither prove
nor disprove Romney’s previous statement that “tens of thousands of jobs
net-net were created.” They
can neither prove it nor disprove it because they can't get a straight answer
from Crooked Willard about the matter.
let's look at Mittens' record in Massachusetts: According to state unemployment numbers, the net
number of jobs added during the four years Romney was in office was 24,400 -- a
fraction of the total of about 200,000 lost during the recession [of 2001].
Although the number of new jobs steadily climbed
during Romney's four years in office -- from a loss of 54,700 in his first year
to a gain of 34,700 in his final year -- most of the rest of the country
rebounded much faster. Massachusetts is one of
just six states that hasn't added back all the jobs lost during the recession. "Our losses were steeper, and our gains have
been slower and as an end result we are still nearly 100,000 jobs down,"
said Dana Ansel, research director for the Massachusetts Institute for a New
Commonwealth, a nonpartisan think tank. The state's unemployment numbers also showed little
movement during Romney's tenure.
Romney lies on the the economy.
Mitt Romneys lies on his
own Super Pac!
"With regards to their ads, I
haven't seen them," Romney said, after being implored by Gingrich to
"calmly and directly" take some responsibility for spots that the
former Speaker of the House alleged were "untrue."
But moments later -- in the same
response, in fact -- Romney made it clear that he hadn't told the entire truth.
"The ad I saw said that you'd been
forced out of the speakership. That was correct," Romney said.
After the debate, Romney spokesman Eric
Fehrnstrom attempted to clarify that Romney "hasn't seen all of the super
PAC ads, but there was one in particular that he saw which he
THAT OBAMA'S OBJECTIVE IS A SOCIETY OF "EQUAL OUTCOMES"
whenever you think Mittens has sunk to the bottom in his campaign of lies and
slanders against President Obama, he digs a hole and goes deeper. This is one
of those times. Read the words of Mendacious Mitt for yourself:
a couple of weeks ago in Kansas, President Obama lectured us about Teddy
Roosevelt’s philosophy of government. But he failed to mention the important
difference between Teddy Roosevelt and Barack Obama. Roosevelt believed that
government should level the playing field to create equal opportunities.
President Obama believes that government should create equal outcomes.
an entitlement society, everyone receives the same or similar rewards,
regardless of education, effort, and willingness to take risk. That which is
earned by some is redistributed to the others. And the only people who truly
enjoy any real rewards are those who do the redistributing—the government.
let me say this is as clearly as humanly possible:
PRESIDENT OBAMA HAS NEVER CALLED FOR A
SOCIETY BASED ON "EQUAL OUTCOMES". NOT ONCE. NOT EVER. NEVER.
accusation is so UTTERLY false that Jonathan Chait was moved to make this
"This is nuts, Glenn Beck–level
is, nuts, folks. Complete out-and-out lunacy. But make no mistake. Willard
isn't saying this because he's crazy. He's saying it to suck up to the
hate-filled nutjobs that make up the hardest core of the Republican Party. No,
Willard isn't crazy.
ROMNEY LIES ABOUT HIS SUPPORT FOR GAY RIGHTS, NOW PANDERS
TO ANTI-GAY FANATICS
Andrew Sullivan has done yeoman's work in
pointing out the disgusting lies of the vile Mittens Romney. Today, he brings
our attention to Willard's 180 degree reversal on the issue of gay rights--and his pathetic lies about it. He links to an
article here about a former Romney staffer discussing Willard's
support for gay rights in 2002. Excerpt:
A former intern to
Mitt Romney publicly stated on Monday that as a candidate for governor in 2002,
the Massachusetts Republican did authorize and disseminate fliers championing
equal rights for gay citizens...[Josh] Barro, who served as an intern on Romney's gubernatorial campaign,
explained that on Pride weekend in 2002, the campaign sent about a half-dozen
interns to a "post-parade festival on Boston Common" to hand out
flyers proclaiming that "all citizens deserve equal rights, regardless of
their sexual preference."
thing was organized by a full-time staffer," Barro added.[Eric] Ferhnstrom, who served as communications director on that same
campaign, told The Huffington Post on Sunday that the Romney's election team
had not been involved in producing or handing out the flyers and that the
former Massachusetts governor shouldn't be held accountable for them. "I
don't know where those pink flyers came from. I was the communications director
on the 2002 campaign. I don't know who distributed them ... I never saw them
and I was the communications director," Ferhnstrom said...
accounts renew questions as to just how much an evolution Romney has had on the
topic of gay rights. Ferhnstrom insisted on Sunday that there had been "no
evolution," that Romney has always been opposed to gay marriage and civil
unions, while he is inclined to extend some legal benefits to gay couples. [Emphasis added] But on Monday, Buzzfeed also turned up an old
1994 newspaper cover, featuring then Senate-candidate Romney claiming that he
would "be better than Ted [Kennedy] for gay rights." Willard proclaimed himself a champion of gay rights. "I'll be
better than TED KENNEDY", he said.
Here's a copy of the flyer from 2002.
Romney used to bill himself
as a fervent supporter of equal rights for ALL Americans. Now this lying weasel
is claiming that he was NEVER about all of that, that he's always been on the side of the people
who see our gay children, our gay friends, our gay siblings, and our gay
co-workers, as second-class citizens. He's groveling and pandering to the kind
of people who want to put gays in prison. And why?
Because he'll go down any
low road he has to in order to win. And he can do this without breaking a
ROMNEY LIES ABOUT PRESIDENT
OBAMA'S HEALTH CARE LAW
On Tuesday night in New Hampshire, during his
ugly, lying, demagogic, smear-filled, slanderous victory speech, Willard again
promised to repeal "Obamacare" (as radical right-wingers call the
Affordable Care Act). Mittens has been traveling the country mouthing yet
another of his incredible lies: that
the ACA is aimed at a total, 100% takeover of everyone's healthcare. The
folks at Politifact, with whom I have had my differences recently, were right
on the money when they labeled this a "Pants on Fire" LIE: According to the Census Bureau, the percentage of Americans without
health insurance nationally was slightly under 17 percent in 2009, the year
Obama began pushing for the bill. According to a Congressional Budget Office
estimate, the number was about the same in 2010, when the measure was signed
into law. Other estimates have pegged the national number at about 15 percent.
Meanwhile, Romney said that Obama’s law "dealt with 100 percent of
American people." That’s not exactly correct -- the law allows a few
categories of people to opt out of the individual mandate, primarily those for
whom it would be a financial hardship. But it’s not too far off.
However, if that’s the standard, then the two bills [the ACA and Romney's healthcare law in Massachusetts] are quite similar.
The Massachusetts plan has affordability and religious exemptions for the
individual mandate that echo those in the federal law, so both laws would
affect something approaching 100 percent of the population, even if not exactly
100 percent. Comparing 8 percent to 17 percent "would have been apples to
apples," said Henry Aaron, a senior fellow with the centrist-to-liberal
Michael Tanner, a senior fellow at the libertarian Cato Institute and a
critic of the federal health care law, agreed. To be consistent, he said,
Obama’s plan only impacted 15 percent to 17 percent of the U.S
population. "Romney appears to be suggesting that his bill only impacted the
uninsured in Massachusetts. Not true, as I have written," Tanner said.
"You can only get to those numbers by assuming that the only relevant part
of either bill is the individual mandate and that only the currently uninsured
are impacted by the mandate. Neither of those premises is true."
ROMNEY IS LYING CONSTANTLY ABOUT
OBAMA'S TRADE POLICY
Willard, who is
psychologically incapable of opening his mouth without uttering a disgusting
lie, lies regularly about Obama's trade
policy. To wit:
During the Jan. 7, 2012, Republican presidential
debate in Manchester, N.H., former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney took a shot
at President Barack Obama’s trade policies.
"We have to open up markets for our
goods," Romney said. "We haven't done that under this president.
European nations and China over the last three years have opened up 44
different trade relationships with various nations in the world. This president
has opened up none."
We won’t check the claim about European and Chinese
trade deals here, but we will look at whether Romney is correct about Obama’s
record on trade agreements. After lengthy negotiations, Obama signed trade
agreements with three separate nations on Oct. 21, 2011 -- South Korea,
Colombia, and Panama.
These were not trivial deals. The one with South
Korea, in particular, was "the largest trade deal since 1994," when
the U.S. approved the North American Free Trade Agreement, Bloomberg News
reported at the time, citing administration data. The South Korea deal was poised
to increase U.S. export access "for everything from cars to farm
goods," Bloomberg wrote.
ROMNEY FALSELY CLAIMS OBAMA
INCREASED THE CORPORATE TAX RATE
there ANYTHING Willard WON'T lie about? Now this shameless, incorrigible liar
is claiming that President Obama raised the corporate income tax rate.
except he didn't:
The only problem with
Mitt Romney's fact check of President Barack Obama after his State of the Union
address was that the Republican presidential candidate used "facts"
that weren't true.
Romney accused Obama of
raising corporate tax rates during his presidency, something that Obama has not
actually done, as Josh Marshall of Talking Points Memo first noted. Romney also
claimed that Obama had lifted some of his ideas from Republicans -- including
lowering taxes on corporations. "Well, in some
respects, I have to compliment the president on adopting a whole series of
ideas that I've been speaking about for the last several years," Romney
told NBC after the Tuesday night speech, according to UPI. "If you want to
get the economy going, lower corporate tax rates -- of course, he's raised
But experts say that
Obama has advocated for lowering the top marginal corporate tax rate, if
anything. Since 1993, it has held steady at 35 percent. In 2010, the U.S. had
the second-highest top marginal corporate tax rate of any member nation of the Organization of Economic Co-operation and Development (after Japan), according
to the group.
ROMNEY CLAIMS HE PAYS A 50%(!)
Mitt really does think people
are stupid, doesn't he? Now he's claiming that because he donates a lot to
charity (even though the bulk of his giving is to his own Mormon Church, and
not charitable institutions) that this constitutes "giving back to the
community" comparable to being taxed at 40% (even though his 15% rate and
15% in charitable and church giving equals 30%). In addition, he says much of
his compensation was originally taxed at the corporate rate of 35%, so it's
just as if he were paying HALF of his income in taxes.
that he's lying. ...he's saying that thanks to the
nominal corporate tax rate of 35 percent, he's actually paying 50 percent in
taxes when you add in his 15 percent. Now, if he really believed that he was
paying 50 percent in taxes, he wouldn't have said he gives back 40 percent to
the community—he'd have said he gives back 75 percent. But he doesn't really
believe what he's saying ... because it is patently absurd. Paul Krugman has an excellent dismantling of the
case Romney is trying to make regarding corporate taxes. First, because most of
Romney's capital gains income comes by way of carried interest, it was never
previously taxed at 35 percent. Second, almost no companies actually pay the
nominal corporate tax rate. Third, even if it were fair to say that the income
had previously been taxed at 35 percent rate, conservatives have long argued
that corporate taxes come at the expense of worker's wages. Now, suddenly, they
are saying it comes at the expensive of investors? Talk about double-counting!
DEBUNKING ROMNEY "JOB
New York Times did a
brief fact-checking article, right here,
about Willard's dubious claims concerning his "job creating"
abilities from his days at Bain Vulture Capital. You see, Willard has regularly
given different figures about this--10,000, or 100,000, or (more recently)
120,000. The Times sets the record straight:
Mr. Romney arrives at the 100,000 jobs number by
combining the current employment figures of three main companies that Bain
Capital invested in – Staples, Sports Authority, and Domino’s Pizza. (He
sometimes also includes a fourth company, Steel Dynamics). However, that number
only addresses a small group of companies that Mr. Romney was successful in
starting or turning around, and does not take into account the less successful
companies that Bain Capital invested in, some of which went bankrupt or were
forced to layoff workers. It is also
worth noting that Bain Capital was not a major investor in any of the four
companies that Mr. Romney cites. In fact, in the case of
Romney's biggest boast, the success of Staples office supplies, Bain wasn't
even a major player.
Bain only provided TEN PER CENT
of the start-up money for Staples.
In fact, this is how
Willard used to describe his role: [During the 1994 Senate campaign Romney] emphasized
that he always used the word "helped" and didn’t take full credit for
the jobs. "That’s why I’m always very careful to use the words ‘help
create,' " he acknowledged. "Bain Capital, or Mitt Romney, ‘helped
create’ over 10,000 jobs. I don’t take credit for the jobs at Staples. I helped
create the jobs at Staples."
now Willard is the Glorious Job Creator, the Man Who Will Slay the Recession,
our deliverer from joblessness--even though the private sector has added more
net jobs under Obama since June 2009 than Bush achieved in eight years.
Romney's main claim to office is his business "expertise"--as if
being a CEO is somehow comparable to being president. In my opinion, Willard
has grossly inflated his so-called "expertise".
ROMNEY CONTINUES TO LIE ABOUT OUR
when Willard gets caught lying and is questioned about it, his campaign will
call it a "mistake". But Willard has this habit of repeating these
"mistakes" again and again. The inimitable Steve Benen has the story.
September, Mitt Romney claimed that the federal regulatory burden had increased
four-fold since President Obama was elected. When NPR asked Romney’s campaign
to back that up, aides said the former governor “misspoke” when he made the
bogus claim. [In
December] as Pat Garofalo noted, Romney repeated the same lie his campaign had
already walked back months ago.
problematic enough when major presidential candidates say things that aren’t
true on the campaign trail. But when a candidate says something untrue, then
the campaign acknowledges it was a mistake, only to have the candidate repeat
it all over again points to a campaign that doesn't take the truth seriously.
White House has approved fewer regulations than his predecessor George W. Bush
at this same point in their tenures, and the estimated costs of those rules
haven’t reached the annual peak set in fiscal 1992 under Bush’s father,
according to government data reviewed by Bloomberg News. […] Obama’s White
House approved 613 federal rules during the first 33 months of his term, 4.7
percent fewer than the 643 cleared by President George W. Bush’s administration
in the same time frame, according to an Office of Management and Budget
statistical database reviewed by Bloomberg.
As for why
Romney would repeat a falsehood his own campaign already admitted wasn’t true,
we know why — because to Romney and his boosters, the truth is largely
irrelevant, campaign messages necessarily constitute “propaganda” that need not
be accurate, and there’s nothing especially wrong with sociopathic standards
for honesty in the public discourse.
Yes, not only is it a lie, it's a lie of GROTESQUE proportions. Romney is
claiming a four-fold increase where there has actually been a REDUCTION.
Amazing, brazen, incredible arrogance. And he keeps repeating the same damned,
grotesque lies again and again.
ROMNEY LIES ABOUT AID TO THE POOR
Willard "Stay away
from me, you wretched peon" Romney says he doesn't worry about the poor
because they have a social safety net to protect them. Then he brazenly lies
about how much aid from the safety net programs actually gets to the poor. Paul
Krugman has the truth of
First of all, just a few days ago, Mr. Romney was
denying that the very programs he now says take care of the poor actually
provide any significant help. On Jan. 22, he asserted that safety-net programs
— yes, he specifically used that term — have “massive overhead,” and that
because of the cost of a huge bureaucracy “very little of the money that’s
actually needed by those that really need help, those that can’t care for
themselves, actually reaches them.”
like much of what Mr. Romney says, was completely false: U.S. poverty programs
have nothing like as much bureaucracy and overhead as, say, private health
insurance companies. As the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities has
documented, between 90 percent and 99 percent of the dollars allocated to
safety-net programs do, in fact, reach the beneficiaries. [Emphasis
the dishonesty of his initial claim aside, how could a candidate declare that
safety-net programs do no good and declare only 10 days later that those
programs take such good care of the poor that he feels no concern for their
this whopper about how safety-net programs actually work, how credible was Mr.
Romney’s assertion, after expressing his lack of concern about the poor, that
if the safety net needs a repair, “I’ll fix it”?
has ZERO CREDIBILITY in this matter, just as he has no credibility on any other
matter of public policy. This guy intends to lie his way into power, helped by
a cabal of powerful right-wing interests who will spend UNLIMITED amounts of
money to push his constant river of lies onto an often unsuspecting public.
This is a battle for the heart and soul of America. Do we preserve what is best
in our country, what is best for our people, best for our future, and best for
ROMNEY IS TRYING TO TAKE CREDIT FOR AN AUTO
COMPANIES BAIL-OUT THAT HE OPPOSED
ROMNEY PLEDGES TO SAVE PROGRAMS
HE INTENDS TO DESTROY OR CRIPPLE
Those programs would be SOCIAL
SECURITY and MEDICARE. Willard is planning to do grievous damage to both. And
yet, in Florida, he was all about reassuring everyone that he'll do everything
that's needed to keep them going smoothly.
Mitt Romney has lied day after day on the campaign
trail, but yesterday he topped himself when he pledged to preserve Medicare and
Social Security at an event in the Sunshine State. The truth is exactly the
opposite: Mitt Romney and the Republicans want to eliminate Medicare and Social
Security as we know them and hand them over to Wall Street with a reckless
Romney is a staunch supporter of
Congressman Paul Ryan's radical budget plan to end Medicare and Medicaid and
dramatically increase health care costs for seniors struggling to make ends
meet. Ryan wants to put Medicare beneficiaries at the mercy of profit-mad private
health insurance companies and force seniors to fork over at least $6,400 more
per year on health care while letting billionaires and corporations skip out on
their taxes. Romney and the Republicans want to strip seniors of new drug
benefits and preventive care provided by the Affordable Care Act.
The Ryan Plan to DESTROY--not "reform"--Medicare would be as catastrophe. Those under 55 would, upon reaching Medicare age, be devastated by
appalling health care costs. Willard plans to do this AND GIVE HIMSELF A HUGE TAX CUT.
This is the kind of damage he's planning to do to this country if (God forbid!)
he attains power.
ROMNEY LYING ABOUT BIRTH CONTROL RULING
Willard, never wanting to
be out-demagogued or out-crazied by anyone, has launched an ugly attack on the
Obama Administration's decision on hospitals and contraception. He is deliberately
distorting the issue, calling some contraceptives "abortive
are supposed to pretend science and biology and stuff is all a matter of
interpretation, but for the record, contraception is not abortion, even
emergency contraception. Romney's not an idiot. He knows this. What he's doing
right there, he's lying, deliberately.
new rule simply requires employers and insurers to include prescription
contraceptives without cost-sharing, carving out an exemption for religious
institutions. It exempts churches that are actually functioning houses of
worship... It exempts religious non-profit organizations whose primary mission
is to serve people of faith. Twenty-eight states already have this insurance
requirement. It's just smart policy that makes the lives of millions of
Americans just a little bit simpler.
But for a tiny sliver of the population whose
primary goal in life is seeing women punished for having sex, it's the end of
the world. And Mitt Romney wants their votes! He's gonna have a bit of a
problem with that, because as with everything else, there's a moderate Mitt in
When he was governor, he "required
all Massachusetts hospitals, including Catholic ones, to provide emergency
contraception to rape victims." That's not forgotten.
ROMNEY PROPOSING UTTERLY DISHONEST TAX
weeks ago, Mitt Romney unveiled what he has repeatedly deemed a
"bold" plan to deliver a 20 percent across-the-board tax cut. As it
turns out, the plan isn't so bold after all. For starters, it's largely a retread
of the 15 percent tax cut scheme Bob Dole rode to defeat in 1996. And after a
wave of analyses showed Romney's plan would produce oceans of red ink while
giving the rich yet another payday courtesy of the U.S. Treasury, Mitt admitted
today that his plan "can't be scored" because "I haven't laid
out all of the details."
As The Hill reported today, the GOP
frontrunner is now essentially claiming he deserves an "A" because
the dog ate his homework: "So I haven't laid out all of the details about
how we're going to deal with each deduction, so I think it's kind of
interesting for the groups to try and score it, because frankly it can't be
scored, because those kinds of details will have to be worked out with
Congress, and we have a wide array of options." As Ezra Klein's Wonkblog
rightly concluded: "Let's be clear on this: A tax plan that can't be
scored because it doesn't include sufficient details is not a plan. It's a
gesture towards a plan, or a statement of intended direction, or perhaps an
unusually wonky daydream. But it's not a plan."
Romney's may not be a plan, but it is a
recipe. At a time of record income inequality, the lowest federal tax burden in
60 years, and large budget deficits without listing all of his ingredients,
Mitt Romney is just offering a recipe for exploding national debt and a
windfall for the wealthy... Romney's tax cuts are even more expensive [than
Bush's], clocking in at a cost of more than $10.7 trillion over the next decade
and reducing revenue to a paltry 15 percent of GDP, according to Linden.
Balancing the budget on those terms, as Romney claims he will do, would be next
to impossible. Mittens promises to cut
taxes, massively increase the defense budget, and leave programs for the
elderly intact, at least for now. Willard is fully aware that his tax
proposal can't possibly balance the budget or reduce the deficit. His plan
isn't intended to do those things. First, it's intended to sucker gullible
people out there into thinking they're getting a windfall. Second, it's
intended to channel massive amounts of money into the pockets of Willard and
his pals. From CNN Money:
Mitt Romney's new tax plan would mean lower taxes
for most Americans. But some would benefit more than others. According to a new
analysis from the Tax Policy Center, wealthy Americans would see their taxes
fall precipitously under Mitt Romney's new plan -- which scraps the Alternative
Minimum Tax and cuts marginal tax rates by 20%.
Bush tax cuts are extended, the Romney plan would give the top 1% of earners an
average tax cut of $150,000, a 7.8% reduction in their average federal tax
rate, according to the Tax Policy Center. Americans in the middle 20% of
income-earners would get an average tax cut of $810, a 1.4% tax rate reduction.
Those making $1 million or more would receive an average tax cut of $50,000, an 8.1%
tax rate reduction, while the average American would get $2,800, a 3.5% rate
drop. The plan would also add to the deficit -- $480
billion in calendar year 2015 alone, according to the study.
Adding $480 billion to the deficit in one year?!? And Romney claims his plan is
fiscally responsible? If Willard wins and the Tea Party fanatics in Congress
push his tax plan through, catastrophe is the only outcome. Romney the Liar is
trying to sell us all snake oil so that he and his cronies can line their
See Votes by State
News & Politics