Political Animal
Blog
When Mitt Romney sat down with the Las Vegas Review-Journal last week, he made quite a bit of news. It was in that interview, for example, that Romney announced his opposition to protecting homeowners from foreclosures, and signaled support for Medicare vouchers.
But there was something else Romney said in that same interview that’s worth noting:
“There are four or five major acts that would balance the budget. One would be to bring discretionary accounts back to the 2008 level. Two is to end Obamacare; it’s an extra trillion dollars we simply can’t afford. Three is to return Medicaid to the states — as a block grant — and grow it at one to two percent per years and let states craft their own programs for their own poor. Four is to reduce federal employment by about 10 percent, through attrition. And five is to link government pay with that which exists in the private sector…. Those five steps would balance the budget.”
That’s quite a plan. I don’t know if Romney realizes this or not, but this is a pretty radical approach — which would not balance the budget.
Let’s put aside the fact that Romney wants to increase military spending and hasn’t said how he’d pay for it. Let’s also put aside the fact that Romney wants to cut even more taxes and hasn’t found a way to pay for that, either. If balancing the budget is his priority, Romney’s campaign promises are already poised to make the problem worse, not better.
Let’s also put aside the fact that gutting Medicaid like this would save money, but it would be a disaster for those who rely on the program. We’ll also overlook the reality that returning to 2008 spending levels would require massive cuts to education, medical research, law enforcement, etc., which voters might take issue with.
Ignoring all of this, let’s instead highlight Romney’s belief that he can bring the budget closer to balance by eliminating the entirety of the Affordable Care Act. The non-partisan Government Accountability Office knows better, and as Brian Beutler noted today, “repealing ObamaCare would consign us to swift, ugly fiscal and health care crises.”
The health care reform law will extend subsidized private health insurance to millions of Americans, paid for with new taxes and Medicare savings. But it also included numerous demonstration projects and reforms intended to reign in the growth of health care costs, and thus Medicare spending. Some of them have great promise — if they can survive.
If Republicans get their way and repeal this and other provisions — and if Congress keeps passing temporary “doc fixes” to prevent payment cuts to doctors who see Medicare patients — then Medicare costs will continue to soar, and eventually overwhelm the federal budget.
In other words, one of Romney’s key ideas on how best to make the deficit smaller would actually make the deficit much bigger.
Anyone who thinks this guy has credibility on these issues just isn’t paying close enough attention.
Facebook
Twitter
zeitgeist on October 24, 2011 3:46 PM:
the problem, Steve, is that much like with Wikipedia these folks have their own dictionary and it isn't the same one you are trying to hold them to.
"credibility" to you means truthfully making informed, factual statements.
but to them "credibility" means telling the correct lie.
Romney is telling the correct lie, so the Republican minions will find him very credible.
oh, and I should add - the MSM dictionary defines "credibility" as that which comes from being deemed credible by Republican minions.
Gov't Mule on October 24, 2011 3:47 PM:
@ Steve: you seem to be shocked by the details of Slick Willard's budget, but what else would you expect from someone who made a living using someone else's money/
BigRed on October 24, 2011 4:01 PM:
Bringing discretionary accounts back to the 2008 level and reducing federal employment by about 10 percent is surely double counting. A primary way to reduce discretionary accounts is by reducing federal employment.
K in VA on October 24, 2011 4:12 PM:
No Affordable Care Act + Reduced Funds for Medicare and Medicaid = Reduced Life Expectancy = Fewer People without Insurance = Reduced Spending on Medical Care
Now, wasn't that simple?
ex-curm on October 24, 2011 4:21 PM:
"link government pay with that which exists in the private sector"
Many private sector attorneys and financial types make much more than federal government employees
Rick B on October 24, 2011 4:23 PM:
Mitt may be following the example of staffing set by Shrub. Remember when it was announced that all of the White House staff were political hack and none were policy types?
Mitt's statement is exactly what we should expect from GOP political hacks with no "leavening" by political policy experts.
c u n d gulag on October 24, 2011 4:25 PM:
Mitt, this is a country!
You can't f*cking fire everybody just to make a profit.
And still, he's too smart and compassionate for the true moronic knuckledragging ignorati.
Gandalf on October 24, 2011 4:30 PM:
ex-curm that's an excellent point. Hell we can play that out in about every area of govt employment. How many attorneys work for the US govt. I know for a faact that the salries they get are not close to the private sector. But wait perhaps that mindless,heartless piece of shit Romney is taliking about the people who sweep up around the capital. Why those bastards should be working for the same money as Nike workers in Indonesia.
SKI on October 24, 2011 4:36 PM:
Buetler's throwaway "[If] Congress keeps passing temporary 'doc fixes' to prevent payment cuts to doctors who see Medicare patients - then Medicare costs will continue to soar, and eventually overwhelm the federal budget" is in direct contradiction to the earlier (appropriate) recognition that gutting Medicaid may save money but will be incredibly damaging to actual care for actual people.
If SGR isn't fixed, the number of doctors willing to take Medicare will be slashed - at a time we already have a massive physician shortage.
square1 on October 24, 2011 5:02 PM:
If Republicans get their way and repeal this and other provisions — and if Congress keeps passing temporary “doc fixes” to prevent payment cuts to doctors who see Medicare patients — then Medicare costs will continue to soar, and eventually overwhelm the federal budget.
Here's the problem as I see it. While HCR proponents DO want doctors to take a haircut, pretty much nobody wants the rates to be as low as they would be under the existing formula...hence the bipartisan agreement to keep passing "doc fixes".
So why didn't Democrats revise the existing reimbursement formula during the crafting of the ACA legislation? I could be wrong but I believe the bill was scored by the CBO as if the doc fixes were never going to be passed.
Now to be fair to the Democrats, if they had revised the formula as part of ACA, it would have hurt the CBO scoring even though a temporary or permanent fix was required no matter what. Still, the Democrats did have the perfect opportunity to address the problem and they punted for political reasons. Not the end of the world, but there you go.
Phil Perspective on October 24, 2011 5:22 PM:
ex-curm:
I am sure those in the military would like it. Look at what we pay Blackwater(or Xe) and other Mercs these days.
Another Steve on October 24, 2011 5:28 PM:
I don't know if it's because the media is now that post-modern or if it's because the other attractions in the GOP presidential freakshow make him look so normal by comparison that no one notices, but I really do believe there was a time in this country when the fact that literally every word a potential nominee utters is absolute nonsense would have been a matter of some concern to the media and the voters.
Jamie on October 24, 2011 5:40 PM:
I'm wondering which GOp hopeful will come up with the soylent green solution.
Mac on October 24, 2011 6:31 PM:
I've got a better idea, Mitt. Let's return tax levels to their 2000 levels. We can do it in steps over a couple of years coming down from the top 10% wage earners.
I'm not aware that 2008 was such a golden era.
One More Steve on October 24, 2011 6:32 PM:
I'm pretty sure ending Medicare is a Republican long range plan. Making it too expensive to support feed right into that plan.
"Oh my Medicare is busting the budget (because we forced it to), we must privatize and eliminate it for people born in 1960 or later"
jjm on October 24, 2011 6:55 PM:
To gainsay Romney, see http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/10/chart-of-the-day-repealing-obamacare-would-be-disastrous-for-the-budget.php:
If Congress simply does nothing — and allows the Bush tax cuts, and other temporary laws to expire — the country’s fiscal health will improve significantly over the long term.
But the report implies something that’s been lost in the recent partisan debate over the country’s future: repealing ObamaCare would consign us to swift, ugly fiscal and health care crises.
The health care reform law will extend subsidized private health insurance to millions of Americans, paid for with new taxes and Medicare savings. But it also included numerous demonstration projects and reforms intended to rein in the growth of health care costs, and thus Medicare spending. Some of them have great promise — if they can survive.
exlibra on October 24, 2011 7:03 PM:
Three is to return Medicaid to the states [...] and let states craft their own programs for their own poor. -- Mittens
Surely, a Disunited States of North America, with border controls and visas will follow as people from poorer/less-well-managed states try to move into better ones, while the people in the well-off ones won't want to see any "scroungers" moving in?
Countme-In on October 24, 2011 7:22 PM:
By bringing Federal executive pay into line with the pay scales, bonuses, and responsibilities of the upper crust of corporate CEOs in the private sector, President Mitt Romney will confer on himself a base salary of roughly one trillion dollars, with billion dollar salaries going to Cabinet Secretaries.
That's a lot of cake to tell the rest of us to eat.
I predict 100,000 dead vermin Republicans within the first week of a Republican Presidency and Congress.
chi res on October 24, 2011 8:35 PM:
There's gotta be some government jobs we could outsource to India, right?
How bout 911 call centers? Voting machine service and repair? Drone remote control? The Senate?
GoringMyox on October 24, 2011 8:48 PM:
I look forward to having my salary match that in the private sector. From $105K to $155K. I'll need the difference create a retirement fund to make up for the destruction Romney would cause the US.
Rip on October 24, 2011 9:01 PM:
Being president is kind of like being a CEO, and when Government pay is linked to the private sector one would expect the President's salary to at the very least be in line with the average compensation for a Fortune 500 CEO. So I think what Romney is saying is that he'd like an $11 Million a year compensation package as President, with a golden parachute worth say another $40 Million should the voters decide not to rehire him after four years.
Crissa on October 24, 2011 9:14 PM:
I guess he doesn't know that every scientist, lawyer, and paper-pusher employed by the government pretty much gets paid a pittance compared with the private sector. And let's not even bother to look at the paycheck of contractors vs military personnel.
But know-nothingness is totally the conservative meme this year, isn't it?
Crissa on October 24, 2011 9:29 PM:
Hmm, block quote is broken somehow. It put it in a different font, but then didn't... Block it.
loveCougars on October 25, 2011 4:05 AM:
Love it so much¡do you like dating a sexy mature woman online ? R u a cougar who is seeking a nice cub , or want to meet a younger man ? u can get what you want here¡ª- The site named ***Cou g ara dot ( 0 M ****. It¡¯s where cougars and younger men can meet(Cougar is the slang for woman who is mature, experienced and want to date with a younger man). maybe you will meet your love here .
keep it real please !` £º£©
max on October 25, 2011 8:11 AM:
"When Mitt Romney sat down with the Las Vegas Review-Journal last week, he made quite a bit of news. It was in that interview, for example, that Romney announced his opposition to protecting homeowners from foreclosures, and signaled support for Medicare vouchers."
Both of these are deal breakers for retirees, progressives, and many Indepndents, especially the second one. Medicare vouchers will destroy traditional Medicare. You can't ask for a more suicidal policy from the GOP.
mark on October 25, 2011 9:24 AM:
"And five is to link government pay with that which exists in the private sector."
A lot of government employees would like to see this; they can use a raise.