Political Animal
Blog
It didn’t really get a lot of attention at the time, but I’ve always felt that the single most significant pander to the Right executed by Mitt Romney this cycle was his signature on the so-called “Cut, Cap and Balance” pledge last June. This toxic little statement pledged the signatories to agree on a plan to “cut” federal spending by a huge, fixed amount; “cap” federal spending at a low, fixed percentage of GDP; and then balance the federal budget in perpetuity without any tax increases. It’s a deeply irresponsible position, but then again, it was a sine qua non for any presidential candidate who didn’t want to be in the receiving end of thunderbolts from Jim DeMint.
So it’s interesting that Mitt chose a very specific promise to follow the dictates of “cut, cap and balance” as president—whether or not it was ever enacted as a constitutional amendment—as a centerpiece of his CPAC speech today. And he’s even amplified it by a commitment to hold defense spending to a relatively high level, while cutting high-end taxes well beyond the levels achieved by the Bush tax cuts.
This is all well and good for his CPAC audience (which Mitt charmed with 26 separate invocations of the word “conservative”), but what might it mean for the rest of us?
Ezra Klein’s run some numbers based on the speech and on previous Romney speeches and issue-position documents, and it’s pretty scary:
Romney has, essentially, made four significant fiscal promises: He has pledged to cap federal spending at 20 percent of GDP. He has pledged to cut taxes to about 17 percent of GDP. He has pledged to a floor on defense spending at 4 percent of GDP. And he has pledged to balance the budget.
So let’s add it all up: Romney has to cut federal spending down to 17 percent of GDP. Federal spending is currently at 24 percent of GDP, and the Congressional Budget Office predicts that it will be around 22 percent for the next decade. For comparison’s sake, Paul Ryan’s budget would keep spending above 20 percent of GDP for at least the next 20 years.
That’s a lot of numbers, so here’s the bottom line: Romney is proposing to cut more than twice as much from the budget as Ryan. And Ryan’s budget, as you’ll remember, was already quite austere.
I guess given Mitt’s need to make conservatives feel it’s safe to “settle” for him, it makes sense seen to show he’s willing to “double down” on Ryan’s efforts to roll back the New Deal and the Great Society legacy permanently. But boy, he’s really taking that literally.
Facebook
Twitter
Danp on February 10, 2012 3:46 PM:
Okay all you math majors. Work with me. Revenue is 17%. Spending is 20%. Result is a balanced budget. So R-S-x=0. What's the value of x and where does it come from?
dalloway on February 10, 2012 4:03 PM:
Not content to merely hand over two trillion to the defense industry and another trillion to the banks, the right wing wants to hand trillions more to the mega-rich and that's a two-fer. The resulting draconian cuts will kneecap government (you know, the thing that enforces the laws they hate) and makes them rich enough to control the shell that's left in order to steal the rest of our tax dollars. Wake up and see them for who they are -- criminals.
T2 on February 10, 2012 4:08 PM:
"Wake up and see them for who they are -- criminals."
how about "slave owners"
DAY on February 10, 2012 4:10 PM:
Mitt's merely doubling down on Cheney's "Deficits don't Matter":
Numbers don't matter.
And
Promises don't matter.
jjm on February 10, 2012 4:11 PM:
Yes, @dalloway, you've got it right! They only think of taxpayer money as revenue streams for the wealthy. The don't want "taxes" imposed by the people on themselves, they want "tribute" to the overlords. Why anyone votes for them is beyond me.
Danny on February 10, 2012 4:35 PM:
Anyone still expecting a pivot-back-to-moderation Romney 6.0, should he win the Presidency, should think long and hard about these promises he's made.
Make no mistake: him backing away from this would be Read My Lips all over again. He will be held to his promises by the Republican base. So what this means is that Romney would - if nominated - run on the most extremist Republican platform in a long, long time, effectively committed to do all in his power to roll back the Great Society and the New Deal.
lou on February 10, 2012 4:54 PM:
And all this from a "numbers guy"? Jesus, he'd run the local 5 and dime into the ground using shit like this.
SKM on February 10, 2012 6:22 PM:
You guys are catching on. What I don't understand how the media continues to say that Will-ard is a 'multi-millionaire.' Yeah. Right. Will-ard gives his sons $100 million, that's five sons. Gives son $10 million to start up Solamere Capital. Will-ard buys Clear Channel Communications and gives Limbaugh a $400 million contract...
Just go to CFR's website (council on foreign relations) to see the speeches he's been given throughout the years. For his speeches to CPAC, go to C-Span. Yes. He is a Washington Insider!
SKM on February 10, 2012 6:52 PM:
I will make this note again, Willard, he reminds me of the old movies "Willard" and "Ben." In the movies Willard used rats to attack his perceived enemies.
Oh, and Danp,
I don't think (I'm guessing here) it has anything to do with numbers. I am thinking this has to do with the corporations (for instance, IMF, WTO, WB, and Trilateral Commission). I usually refer people to the site, Global Issues, that pretty much explains things quite simply (as there are some people, not you, but some people who don't really understand economics and multinational corporations). This is a good one, The Rise of Corporations http://www.globalissues.org/article/234/the-rise-of-corporations then click on the other articles, like "Tax Competition" this talks about how multinational corporations use governments to reduce or eliminate taxes by threatening to go elsewhere (much like they are doing here in the states - one state tries to lure business from another state and offers the corporation taypayer dollars/subsidies). Then click Corporations and Worker's Rights, this one talks about how corporations make elected officials cut benefits for the public (called SAP's - it even mentions how Larry Summers did this, as well as mentioning Gore in toxic dumps in emerging countries). But, this leads to "Frequent Toxic Miles," http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=14559 which says how we have dumped our toxic waste in other countries for decades, and now with most of our goods coming from these countries, we are now buying those products...
smartalek on February 10, 2012 9:08 PM:
SKM, thank you very much for the links.
In all my time on the intertubes, I'd never tripped over that one.