Mitt Romney hasn’t even take the stage yet and his campaign is already hiding the truth about his jobs plan. They claimed it would create 12 million jobs, but as independent fact checkers have found, his math simply doesn’t add up. One today wrote that it was a “bait-and-switch,” explaining that the “’new math’ for Romney’s jobs plan doesn’t add up.” And independent projections say that under current policies, 12 million jobs would be created over the next four years no matter what. What’s worse is that Romney’s claim is simply false – outside economists agree his plan would do nothing to create jobs and could slow the recovery. In fact, one study shows that his plan would cost us 2 million jobs over the next two years.

Here are the facts:

ROMNEY BASED THEIR 12 MILLION JOBS CLAIM ON A MYRIAD OF STUDIES – SOME OF WHICH DIDN’T EVEN EVALUATE ROMNEY’S PLANS – THAT FAIL TO PROVE HIS CLAIMS

Washington Post Fact Checker Gave Romney’s Claim That He Will Create 12 Million Jobs In Four Years “Four Pinocchios.” [Washington Post – Fact Checker, Glenn Kessler, 10/16/12]

• Washington Post Headline: “Mitt Romney’s ‘New Math’ For Jobs Plan Doesn’t Add Up.” [Washington Post – Fact Checker, Glenn Kessler, 10/16/12]

Washington Post Fact Checker Called Romney’s Claim That He Will Create 12 Million Jobs In Four Years A “Bait-And-Switch,” Since The Numbers Behind The Claim Are “Based On Different Figures And Long-Range Timelines Stretching As Long As A Decade” And “In Two Cases Are Based On Studies That Did Not Even Evaluate Romney’s Economic Plan.” “Romney’s 12-million-jobs promise has garnered a lot of attention. We became interested in this ad after a reader asked whether the campaign had provided much detail on how he would reach this total. This television ad is also prominently featured on the Romney campaign’s ‘Jobs Plan’ Web page. The math here appears pretty simple: 7 plus 3 plus 2 equals 12. But this is campaign math, which means it is mostly made of gossamer... This is a case of bait-and-switch. Romney, in his convention speech, spoke of his plan to create ‘12 million new jobs,’ which the campaign’s white paper describes as a four-year goal. But the candidate’s personal accounting for this figure in this campaign ad is based on different figures and long-range timelines stretching as long as a decade — which in two cases are based on studies that did not even evaluate Romney’s economic plan. The numbers may still add up to 12 million, but they aren’t the same thing — not by a long shot.” [Washington Post – Fact Checker, Glenn Kessler, 10/16/12]

• Romney Used “Squishy” Numbers To Claim He’ll Create 12 Million Jobs, Including A Citigroup Global Markets Study That Predicted 3 Million Jobs Would Be Created “Largely Because Of Trends And Policies Already Adopted — Including Tougher Fuel Efficiency Standards That Romney Has Criticized And Suggested He Would Reverse.” “For instance, the claim that 7 million jobs would be created from Romney’s tax plan is a 10-year number, derived from a study written by John W. Diamond, a professor at Rice University.  This study at least assesses the claimed effect of specific Romney policies. The rest of the numbers are even more squishy. For instance, the 3-million-jobs claim for Romney’s energy policies appears largely based on a Citigroup Global Markets study that did not even evaluate Romney’s policies. Instead, the report predicted 2.7 million to 3.6 million jobs would be created over the next eight years, largely because of trends and policies already adopted — including tougher fuel efficiency standards that Romney has criticized and suggested he would reverse.” [Washington Post – Fact Checker, Glenn Kessler, 10/16/12]

• Romney’s Claim That 2 Million Jobs Can Be Created By Cracking Down On China Is “Suspicious” Since The Study He Pointed To Was “Highly Conditional.” “The 2-million-jobs claim from cracking down on China is also very suspicious. This figure comes from a 2011 International Trade Commission report, which estimated that there could be a gain of 2.1 million jobs if China stopped infringing on U.S. intellectual property rights. The estimate is highly conditional and pegged to the job market in 2011, when there was high unemployment. ‘It is unclear when China might implement  the improvement in IPR protection envisioned in the analysis, and equally unclear whether the United States will face as much excess labor supply then as it does today,’ the report says. The Romney campaign has already used this study, in a misleading way, to claim that Obama’s China ‘policies cost us 2 million jobs.’ Now the campaign has just taken the same figure and credited the claimed job gain to itself, even though the report does not examine any of Romney’s proposed policies.” [Washington Post – Fact Checker, Glenn Kessler, 10/16/12]

Glenn Hubbard “Acknowledged” That: “The Big Point Is The 3+7+2 Does Not Make Up The 12 Million Jobs In The First Four Years (Different Source Of Growth And Different Time Period).” [Washington Post – Fact Checker, Glenn Kessler, 10/16/12]

Washington Post’s Greg Sargent: Romney’s 12 Million Jobs Claim Is “Flim-Flam” Since “The Studies The Romney Camp Itself Cites In Defense Of The Plan Don’t Back Up The Plan’s Promises.” “Yesterday I noted that one of Obama’s most important tasks at tonight’s debate is to spell out clearly that Mitt Romney is selling the American people a bill of goods on jobs and the economy. Romney has promised that his “five point plan for the middle class” will create 12 million jobs. Of course, economists have estimated that the economy will create that many jobs in four years without any Romney policies. But Post fact checker Glenn Kessler decided to take Romney’s plan at face value. And he’s made an important discovery. It turns out Romney’s plan is an even more absurd exercise in flim-flam than we thought: The studies the Romney camp itself cites in defense of the plan don’t back up the plan’s promises.” [Washington Post, Greg Sargent, 10/16/12]

Washington Post’s Greg Sargent: “The Plan That Is Central To Romney’s Candidacy On The Most Important Issue Of This Election — Jobs — Is A Complete Sham. This Is Every Bit As Bad — Or Worse — Than Romney’s Claim To Have Created 100,000 Jobs At Bain, Or His Vow To Cut Spending By Eliminating Whole Agencies Without Saying Which Ones, Or His Refusal To Say How He’ll Pay For His Tax Cuts.” [Washington Post, Greg Sargent, 10/16/12]

ROMNEY’S ARGUMENT THAT HIS ECONOMIC POLICIES WOULD CREATE 12 MILLION JOBS IN HIS FIRST TERM WAS DISPUTED BY AN INDEPENDENT ECONOMIST, SINCE AMERICA IS ALREADY PROJECTED TO CREATE 12 MILLION JOBS OVER THE NEXT FOUR YEARS

Washington Post’s Ezra Klein: “Romney’s Target Of 12 Million Jobs Over The Next Four Years Happens To Be The Same Number Of Jobs The Economic Forecasting Firm Moody’s Analytics Expects Us To Add Even Without Major Policy Changes.” [Ezra Klein, Washington Post, 8/31/12]

Washington Post Fact Checker: Both Moody’s Analytics And Macroeconomic Advisors Predicted A Gain Of At Least 12 Million Jobs By 2016. “But Moody’s Analytics, in an august forecast, predicts 12 million jobs will be created by 2016, no matter who is president. And Macroeconomic Advisors in April also predicted a gain of 12.3 million jobs.” [Glenn Kessler, Washington Post, 8/31/12]

Washington Post Fact Checker: Romney’s Pledge To Create 12 Million Jobs By 2016 “Appears To Be An Effort To Take Advantage” Of Broad Economic Trends Showing The Same Job Gains No Matter Who Is President. “But Moody’s Analytics, in an august forecast, predicts 12 million jobs will be created by 2016, no matter who is president. And Macroeconomic Advisors in April also predicted a gain of 12.3 million jobs.  In other words, this is a fairly safe bet by Romney, even if he has a somewhat fuzzy plan for action. We have often noted that presidents are often at the mercy — or the beneficiary — of broad economic trends, and Romney’s pledge appears to be an effort to take advantage of that.” [Glenn Kessler, Washington Post, 8/31/12]

Romney’s Promised Job Growth Is “Pretty Close To What’s Already  Expected” And “Not  Much To Write Home About.”  “But by at least some forecasts, Mr. Romney’s promises may actually be a little underambitious, in that his promised job growth is pretty close to what’s already expected. In its semi-annual long-term economic forecast released in April, Macroeconomic Advisers projected that the economy would add 11.8 million jobs from 2012 to 2016. That means Mr. Romney believes his newly announced policies would add an extra 200,000 jobs on top of what people already expected, or a jobs bonus of about 2 percent. The more jobs the better, of course, but that’s not really much to write home about.” [New York Times, Economix Blog, 8/7/12]

ECONOMISTS SAY ROMNEY’S ECONOMIC POLICY PLANS WOULD “DO MORE HARM IN THE SHORT TERM” AND “PUSH US DEEPER INTO RECESSION AND MAKE THE RECOVERY SLOWER”

Washington Post Headline: “Economists: Romney’s Ideas Wouldn’t Fix Short-Term Crisis, And Could Make Things Worse.”  [Greg Sargent, Washington Post, 6/7/12]

Senior Adviser At Moody’s Analytics Mark Hopkins: Romney’s Policies “Would Do More Harm In The Short Term” And “If We Implemented All Of His Policies, It Would Push Us Deeper Into Recession And Make The Recovery Slower.” Asking whether Romney’s economic policy ideas would create jobs in the short-term: “‘On net, all of these policies would do more harm in the short term,’ added Mark Hopkins, a senior adviser at Moody’s Analytics. ‘If we implemented all of his policies, it would push us deeper into recession and make the recovery slower.’” [Greg Sargent, Washington Post, 6/7/12]

Nobel Prize-Winning Economist Joseph Stiglitz: “The Romney Plan Is Going To Slow Down The Economy, Worsen The Jobs Deficit And Significantly Increase The Likelihood Of A Recession.” “Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz said the election of Mitt Romney as president in November would ‘significantly’ raise the odds of a recession because it would herald a shift to a much tighter budget… ‘The Romney plan is going to slow down the economy, worsen the jobs deficit and significantly increase the likelihood of a recession,’ said Stiglitz, who served as chairman of President Bill Clinton's Council of Economic Advisers from 1995 to 1997.” [Bloomberg, 6/5/12]

ONE STUDY SHOWED ROMNEY’S POLICY PROPOSALS WOULD COST NEARLY 2 MILLION JOBS OVER THE NEXT TWO YEARS

Economic Policy Institute: Romney’s Policy Proposals Would Cost 1.9 Million Jobs Over The Next Two Years, If His Tax Cuts Are Paid For. “If some of Romney’s proposed individual income tax cuts were revenue-neutral (he has said that they would be, but has not specified what ‘base-broadening’ adjustments he would make to the tax code to accomplish that), his plans would instead lead to employment losses of 608,000 in 2013 and roughly 1.3 million in 2014. The weaker job growth and outright job losses under the Romney plan are driven by his proposal to cap government spending at 20 percent of gross domestic product (GDP), a move that implies very large cuts to overall spending.” [Economic Policy Institute, Who Would Promote Job Growth Most In The Near Term? Macroeconomic Impacts Of The Obama And Romney Budget Proposals, 9/26/12]

As Congressman Ryan highlighted tonight, he and Mitt Romney are too extreme on the critical issue of women’s health. In the House, Ryan worked with Todd Akin to narrow the definition of rape and outlaw abortion for rape and incest victims. And Romney-Ryan believe women’s health care decisions should be put into the hands of their employers, would defund Planned Parenthood, and endorsed the Republican Party platform that includes a constitutional amendment to ban abortion even in cases of rape and incest.

RYAN COSPONSORED LEGISLATION WITH TODD AKIN THAT WOULD HAVE REDEFINED RAPE AS “FORCIBLE RAPE” AND LIMITED ABORTION COVERAGE FOR RAPE VICTIMS

2011: Ryan Co-Sponsored The “No Taxpayer Funding For Abortion Act,” Which Initially Redefined “Rape” As “Forcible Rape” For Purposed Of Limiting Federal Funding Of Abortion Services. In 2011, Ryan and Todd Akin co-sponsored the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortions Act.  According to the Washington Post, “[a] Republican bill seeking to permanently cut off federal funding for abortions has angered women's groups that say it alters the definition of rape, permitting coverage for the procedure only in cases in which the rape is considered ‘forcible.’ The most well-known provision that would become permanent under the bill is the Hyde Amendment, which prevents some federally funded health-care programs from covering abortions.” [HR 3 Co-Sponsored 1/20/11, Vote #292, 5/4/11; Washington Post, 2/1/11]

• Bloomberg: Ryan Co-sponsored The Legislation Before The Word “Forcible” Was Later Removed In Committee. “While the legislation didn’t explain the difference between rape and forcible rape, the word ‘forcible’ was removed from each bill in committee by amendments from Republicans following criticism from Democratic lawmakers and reproductive-rights groups. Ryan and Akin signed on to the bills before the language was changed.” [Bloomberg, 8/22/12]

• Washington Post: Redefining Rape As Forcible Rape “Could Distinguish It From Other Kinds Of Sexual Assault That Are Typically Recognized As Rape, Including Statutory Rape And Attacks That Occur Because Of Drugs Or Verbal Threats.” “The most well-known provision that would become permanent under the bill is the Hyde Amendment, which prevents some federally funded health-care programs from covering abortions. For years, it has allowed exemptions in cases of rape and incest, and when the life of the woman is threatened. Under the proposed language, however, rape becomes ‘forcible rape.’ Critics say the modifier could distinguish it from other kinds of sexual assault that are typically recognized as rape, including statutory rape and attacks that occur because of drugs or verbal threats.” [Washington Post, 2/1/11]

New York Times Editorial: Ryan Co-Sponsored A Bill With Todd Akin “That Would Have Narrowed The Definition Of Rape To Reduce The Number Of Poor Women Who Can Get An Abortion Through Medicaid.” “Mr. Ryan also co-sponsored, along with Representative Todd Akin of Missouri, a bill that would have narrowed the definition of rape to reduce the number of poor women who can get an abortion through Medicaid.  Besides that, he has co-sponsored more than three dozen anti-abortion bills, including measures that would require women to get an ultrasound first, bar abortions after 20 weeks in the District of Columbia and end federal spending for family planning programs. Though he urged Mr. Akin to end his Senate race last week over an offensive remark about ‘legitimate rape,’ Mr. Ryan has actually co-sponsored more of these measures than Mr. Akin.  ‘I’m as pro-life as a person gets,’ he said in 2010.” [Editorial, New York Times, 8/27/12]

RYAN HAS CO-SPONSORED A PERSONHOOD BILL, WHICH COULD, IN EFFECT, BAN ALL ABORTIONS EVEN IN CASES OF RAPE AND INCEST, AND BAN SOME COMMON FORMS OF BIRTH CONTROL

2011: Ryan Co-Sponsored The Sanctity Of Human Life Act, A Personhood Bill That Defines Life As Beginning At Conception. “On January 7, 2011, U.S. Representative Paul Broun (R-GA) introduced House Resolution (H.R.) 212, the Sanctity of Human Life Act. Co-sponsored by 62 representatives, including Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, the bill declares that: the right to life guaranteed by the Constitution is vested in each human being, and is the paramount and most fundamental right of a person; and the life of each human being begins with fertilization, cloning, or its functional equivalent, irrespective of sex, health, function or disability, defect, stage of biological development, or condition of dependency, at which time every human being shall have all the legal and constitutional attributes and privileges of personhood.” [Pro-Life Wisconsin website, prolifewisconsin.org, accessed 6/21/12; HR 212, Co-sponsored 1/7/11]

• Mother Jones: “None Of The Personhood Bills Being Considered In Congress Contain Any Exemptions For Victims Of Rape Or Incest.” [Mother Jones, 11/8/11]

• Mother Jones: The Sanctity of Human Life Act “Includes Language That Directly Parallels That Of The Mississippi Personhood Amendment.” [Mother Jones, 11/8/11]

• New York Times: Personhood Amendments, Like The One Proposed In Mississippi, Would Ban Virtually All Abortions, Including Those Resulting From Rape Or Incest. “A constitutional amendment facing voters in Mississippi on Nov. 8, and similar initiatives brewing in half a dozen other states including Florida and Ohio, would declare a fertilized human egg to be a legal person, effectively branding abortion and some forms of birth control as murder… The amendment in Mississippi would ban virtually all abortions, including those resulting from rape or incest. It would bar some birth control methods, including IUDs and ‘morning-after pills,’ which prevent fertilized eggs from implanting in the uterus. It would also outlaw the destruction of embryos created in laboratories.” [New York Times, 10/25/11]

• Under The Sanctity Of Human Life Act, “Abortion And Some Forms Of Birth Control Could Be Construed As Murder.” “The concept of personhood is a fundamental tenet of the anti-abortion movement, and under this definition, abortion and some forms of birth control could be construed as murder.” [New York Times, 8/12/12]

RYAN OPPOSES ABORTION, EVEN IN CASES OF RAPE OR INCEST

New York Times Editorial: Ryan “Has Long Wanted To Ban Access To Abortion Even In The Case Of Rape, The Ideology Espoused In This Year’s Republican Platform.” “The full outpouring of hard-right enthusiasm is based, to a large degree, on Mr. Ryan’s sweeping opposition to abortion rights. He has long wanted to ban access to abortion even in the case of rape, the ideology espoused in this year’s Republican platform. (Mr. Romney favors a rape exception.) [Editorial, New York Times, 8/27/12]

• 1998: Ryan Supported Abortion Ban With Exception Only For Mother’s Life. “Ryan has said he favors only one exception to a ban, to save a woman’s life.” [Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 10/30/98]

RYAN SAID OF ABORTION IN THE CASE OF RAPE: “THE METHOD OF CONCEPTION DOESN’T CHANGE THE DEFINITION OF LIFE”

When Asked About His Stance On Abortion In Cases Of Rape, Ryan Said, “The Method Of Conception Doesn’t Change The Definition Of Life.” In an interview with WJHL-TV’s Josh Smith, the following exchange occurred: “SMITH: Abortion, now. Something we’re talking about. And I think our viewers would love to know exactly where you stand, specifically when—you’re pro-life and Catholic… RYAN: Oh, yeah. Yeah. SMITH: …but specifically where you stand when it comes to rape, and when it comes to the issue of should it be legal for a woman to be able to get an abortion if she’s raped. RYAN: I’m very proud of my pro-life record, and I’ve always adopted the idea that—the position that—the method of conception doesn’t change the definition of life.” [Ryan Interview, WJHL (Tri-Cities, TN/VA), 8/23/12]

ROMNEY SUPPORTS THE BLUNT AMENDMENT WHICH WOULD ALLOW ANY EMPLOYER TO OPT OUT OF PROVIDING CONTRACEPTIVE COVERAGE – PUTTING AT RISK THE NEARLY 79 MILLION WOMEN WHO RELY ON THEIR EMPLOYER FOR HEALTH CARE

Romney Endorsed The Blunt Amendment Which Would Allow Employers To “Have Free Rein To Pick And Choose Your Medical Care As He Or She Saw Fit--So If The Boss Believed That Birth Control Were An Affront To God And Nature, Well, Too Bad For You.”  “And yet, just weeks after Obama announced the compromise, Senator Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) proposed legislation that would allow any employer or insurance company to decline to cover any medical care for any moral or religious reason. Under the law, your boss would have free rein to pick and choose your medical care as he or she saw fit--so if the boss believed that birth control were an affront to God and nature, well, too bad for you; you'd have to shell out the full monthly cost for your pill pack. The Blunt Amendment (which Romney endorsed) was blocked in the Senate with an extremely narrow margin--51 to 48--with Maine's Olympia Snowe (who announced around the same time that she would not be seeking reelection) the only Republican voting against it.” [Gretchen Voss, Women’s Health, September 2012]

Nearly 79 Million Women Received Health Care Coverage Through Their Employer.  According to the most recent census data, 78.8 million women under the age of 65 received health insurance coverage from their employer. [U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplement, 2011]

RYAN SUPPORTS A SIMILAR BILL IN THE HOUSE

Ryan On The HHS Contraception Mandate: Romney-Ryan Administration “Will Void This Right Away.” Q: “As a Roman Catholic priest and -- Catholics in particular and religious people in general are worried about the erosion of religious liberty in this country. What can we expect from a Romney-Ryan ticket?” REP. RYAN: “Look, I didn't set it -- as you probably know, I'm a Catholic as well. And -- (inaudible, applause) -- when I read this ruling, I was horrified. President Obama, through his imposition of ‘Obamacare,’ through this rule from the Department of Health and Human Services, is requiring Catholic churches, charities, hospitals to violate their own conscience, their own tenets. This is the First Amendment to the Constitution -- religious liberty, freedom of conscience. This is the First Amendment to our Constitution. I will tell you this. This will not stand in a Mitt Romney administration. Mitt Romney will respect religious liberty, and we will void this right away. We should not have to sue our own government to protect our religious freedoms. That's what our church is doing right now. We will not do this.” [Ryan Remarks in Cincinnati, Ohio, 9/25/12] 

ROMNEY AND RYAN WOULD ELIMINATE FUNDING FOR PLANNED PARENTHOOD AND TITLE X

Romney: “I’ll Cut Off Funding To Planned Parenthood.” [Romney Town Hall, Shelby Twp., MI, 2/21/12]

• Ryan Voted To Defund Planned Parenthood. In 2011, Ryan voted in favor of a bill which would insert a section in the FY11 Continuing Resolution which would prohibit Planned Parenthood and its affiliates from receiving federal funding. The resolution would order the Clerk of the House to change H.R. 1473, the FY11 Continuing Resolution, to bar the use of the federal funds to go to Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Inc., or any affiliate. The bill passed 241-185. [H Con Res 36, Vote #271, 4/14/11; The Hill, 4/12/11]

Romney Was A “Rarity” For Calling For Title X’s Defunding As No Other Candidates Took A Stand On The Issue And “Anti-Abortion Groups Haven’t Asked Candidates To Oppose” It. “In calling for Title X’s defunding, Romney is a bit of a rarity. No other candidate has taken a stand on the issue. Anti-abortion groups haven’t asked candidates to oppose Title X. The Susan B. Anthony List, for example, only goes as far as asking candidates to pledge to “defund Planned Parenthood and all other contractors and recipients of federal funds with affiliates that perform or fund abortions,” but not eliminate Title X outright. In moving to eliminate Title X, Romney is venturing into a new territory where the party doesn’t have much in the way of a definitive platform.” [Washington Post, 11/4/11]

• Bloomberg: Ryan “Drafted A Budget Blueprint That Sought To End Federal Dollars For Title X, The National Family-Planning Program.” “As chairman of the House Budget Committee, [Ryan] drafted a budget blueprint that sought to end federal dollars for Title X, the national family-planning program.” [Bloomberg, 8/22/12]

ROMNEY BACKED A PROPOSAL TO OUTLAW ALL ABORTIONS

Romney Said He Would Be “Delighted” To Sign A Bill Banning “All Abortions.” QUESTIONER: “Hello, my name is AJ. I'm from Millstone, New Jersey. I would all of the candidates to give an answer on this. If hypothetically, Roe v. Wade was overturned, and the Congress passed a federal ban on all abortions and it came to your desk, would you sign it? Yes or no?” COOPER: “Governor Romney?” ROMNEY: “I agree with Senator Thompson, which is we should overturn Roe v. Wade and return these issues to the states. I would welcome a circumstance where there was such a consensus in this country that we said, we don't want to have abortion in this country at all, period. That would be wonderful. I'd be delighted.” COOPER: “The question is: Would you sign that bill?” ROMNEY: “Let me say it. I'd be delighted to sign that bill. But that's not where we are. That's not where America is today. Where America is is ready to overturn Roe v. Wade and return to the states that authority. But if the Congress got there, we had that kind of consensus in that country, terrific.” [CNN Debate, 11/28/07]

• 2012: Romney Said He “Had The Same Positions Today” As “When I Ran For President Last Time, So What You See Is What You Get.” Romney: “In terms of my positions, my conservative positions were seen in my work as governor. I wrote a book that describes my view for the country. I’ve run for president before. Had the same positions today that I had when I was governor, when I wrote the book and when I ran for president last time, so what you see is what you get.” [Tommy Tucker Show, WWL (New Orleans, LA), 3/23/12]

THE 2012 REPUBLICAN PARTY PLATFORM INCLUDED A HUMAN LIFE AMENDMENT, WHICH WOULD BAN ABORTION, AND DID NOT INCLUDE EXCEPTIONS FOR RAPE OR INCEST

The 2012 Republican Party Platform “Was Written At The Direction Of Romney’s Campaign.” “It didn’t take long for strains within the Republican Party to surface Monday as national delegates got down to work on a final draft of the party platform, one week before the nominating convention opens. … There is no doubt about who is in charge, of course. Delegates for presumptive nominee Mitt Romney are voting down substantive changes to the platform language that was written at the direction of Romney’s campaign.” [Los Angeles Times, 8/20/12]

• The GOP Platform “Seeks Passage Of A Constitutional Amendment That Would Extend Legal Rights To The Unborn, Essentially Banning Abortion” And “The Language In The Platform Includes No Exceptions For Rape Or Incest.” [NPR, 8/21/12]

 

Contrary to what Congressman Ryan said tonight, President Obama was able to expand women’s access to contraception while protecting religious liberty by exempting churches and religiously-affiliated organizations from paying for contraceptive coverage. Mitt Romney and Congressman Ryan, on the other hand, would put women’s health care decisions in the hands of their employers. And Congressman Ryan has repeatedly stood with Todd Akin and extreme Republicans in Congress to restrict women’s access to contraception.

THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION PUT IN PLACE RULES THAT WILL ENSURE WOMEN CAN RECEIVE COVERAGE FOR CONTRACEPTION WHILE RESPECTING THE BELIEFS OF RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS

UNDER THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT, INSURERS WILL COVER CONTRACEPTION AND OTHER RECOMMENDED PREVENTIVE SERVICES FOR WOMEN  WITH NO OUT-OF-POCKET COSTS

Starting August 1, 2012, Under Obama Administration Health Care Guidelines, All FDA-Approved Forms Of Contraception Will Be Covered By Most New And Renewed Health Plans Without A Co-Pay Or Deductible. “Today the department is announcing that the final rule on preventive health services will ensure that women with health insurance coverage will have access to the full range of the Institute of Medicine’s recommended preventive services, including all FDA -approved forms of contraception.  Women will not have to forego these services because of expensive co-pays or deductibles, or because an insurance plan doesn’t include contraceptive services. This rule is consistent with the laws in a majority of states which already require contraception coverage in health plans, and includes the exemption in the interim final rule allowing certain religious organizations not to provide contraception coverage. Beginning August 1, 2012, most new and renewed health plans will be required to cover these services without cost sharing for women across the country.” [Department of Health and Human Services, 1/20/12]

AN ESTIMATED 47 MILLION WOMEN WILL GAIN ACCESS TO AFFORDABLE PREVENTIVE SERVICES, INCLUDING CONTRACEPTION, THANKS TO THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT

The Department Of Health And Human Services Estimates That Thanks To The Affordable Care Act, 47 Million Women Will Receive Access To Contraception And Seven Other Preventive Services Without A Co-Pay Or Deductible. According to a Department of Health and Human Services report: “Based on the most recent data from the Census Bureau, we estimate that under the Affordable Care Act, approximately 47 million women will have guaranteed access to these additional preventive services without cost-sharing for policies renewing on or after August 1, 2012.[4] These services include well-woman visits, screening for gestational diabetes, HPV DNA testing, domestic violence screening and counseling, HIV screening and counseling for sexually transmitted infections, breastfeeding supplies, contraceptive methods and family planning counseling.” [Department of Health and Human Services, 7/31/12]

• According To A 2010 Survey, 55 Percent Of Women Ages 18 To 34 Have Struggled With The Cost Of Prescription Birth Control. “The survey, conducted by Hart Research Associates and commissioned by Planned Parenthood Action Fund, found overwhelming and widespread public support for national policies that would provide prescription birth control approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) at no cost to all women with health insurance. … 55 percent of women 18–34 have struggled with the cost of prescription birth control.” [Planned Parenthood, 10/12/10]

THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION’S DECISION DOES NOT REQUIRE RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS TO PAY FOR, PRESCRIBE, OR PROVIDE CONTRACEPTIVES

The Obama Administration’s Health Care Guidelines On Contraception Exempts Churches And Houses Of Worship From Covering Contraception, And Will Require Insurers To Cover Contraception If A Religiously-Affiliated Organization Objects To Providing Coverage. “Today, the Obama Administration will publish final rules in the Federal Register that: Exempts churches, other houses of worship, and similar organizations from covering contraception on the basis of their religious objections. Establishes a one-year transition period for religious organizations while this policy is being implemented. The President will also announce that his Administration will propose and finalize a new regulation during this transition year to address the religious objections of the non-exempted non-profit religious organizations. The new regulation will require insurance companies to cover contraception if the religious organization chooses not to. Under the policy: Religious organizations will not have to provide contraceptive coverage or refer their employees to organizations that provide contraception. Religious organizations will not be required to subsidize the cost of contraception. Contraception coverage will be offered to women by their employers’ insurance companies directly, with no role for religious employers who oppose contraception.” [White House Fact Sheet, 2/10/12]

ROMNEY SUPPORTS THE BLUNT AMENDMENT WHICH WOULD ALLOW ANY EMPLOYER TO OPT OUT OF PROVIDING CONTRACEPTIVE COVERAGE – PUTTING AT RISK THE NEARLY 79 MILLION WOMEN WHO RELY ON THEIR EMPLOYER FOR HEALTH CARE

Romney Endorsed The Blunt Amendment Which Would Allow Employers To “Have Free Rein To Pick And Choose Your Medical Care As He Or She Saw Fit--So If The Boss Believed That Birth Control Were An Affront To God And Nature, Well, Too Bad For You.”  “And yet, just weeks after Obama announced the compromise, Senator Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) proposed legislation that would allow any employer or insurance company to decline to cover any medical care for any moral or religious reason. Under the law, your boss would have free rein to pick and choose your medical care as he or she saw fit--so if the boss believed that birth control were an affront to God and nature, well, too bad for you; you'd have to shell out the full monthly cost for your pill pack. The Blunt Amendment (which Romney endorsed) was blocked in the Senate with an extremely narrow margin--51 to 48--with Maine's Olympia Snowe (who announced around the same time that she would not be seeking reelection) the only Republican voting against it.” [Gretchen Voss, Women’s Health, September 2012]

Nearly 79 Million Women Received Health Care Coverage Through Their Employer.  According to the most recent census data, 78.8 million women under the age of 65 received health insurance coverage from their employer. [U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplement, 2011]

RYAN SUPPORTS A SIMILAR BILL IN THE HOUSE

Ryan On The HHS Contraception Mandate: Romney-Ryan Administration “Will Void This Right Away.” Q: “As a Roman Catholic priest and -- Catholics in particular and religious people in general are worried about the erosion of religious liberty in this country. What can we expect from a Romney-Ryan ticket?” REP. RYAN: “Look, I didn't set it -- as you probably know, I'm a Catholic as well. And -- (inaudible, applause) -- when I read this ruling, I was horrified. President Obama, through his imposition of ‘Obamacare,’ through this rule from the Department of Health and Human Services, is requiring Catholic churches, charities, hospitals to violate their own conscience, their own tenets. This is the First Amendment to the Constitution -- religious liberty, freedom of conscience. This is the First Amendment to our Constitution. I will tell you this. This will not stand in a Mitt Romney administration. Mitt Romney will respect religious liberty, and we will void this right away. We should not have to sue our own government to protect our religious freedoms. That's what our church is doing right now. We will not do this.” [Ryan Remarks in Cincinnati, Ohio, 9/25/12] 

 

Congressman Ryan tonight said Mitt Romney wouldn’t raise taxes on middle class families, but we know that’s not true. As independent, non-partisan analysts have highlighted, to pay for his plan, Mitt Romney would have to cut popular tax deductions that middle class families rely on, like the mortgage interest and charitable deductions, to pay for $250,000 tax cuts to multi-millionaires and billionaires. Paying for Romney’s tax cuts means the average middle class family with kids would see their taxes go up by $2,000 a year.

ROMNEY PROPOSED $5 TRILLION IN NEW TAX CUTS WHICH WOULD SHOWER MILLIONAIRES AND BILLIONAIRES WITH EVEN MORE BENEFITS WHILE RAISING TAXES ON THE MIDDLE CLASS

Center On Budget And Policy Priorities: Romney’s New Tax Cuts Would Cost $4.9 Trillion Over A Decade, On Top Of The Cost Of Extending The Bush Tax Cuts. “The Tax Policy Center estimates that the Romney tax plan would lose about $480 billion in tax revenue in calendar year 2015, beyond the revenues losses inherent in maintaining current policy (such as continuing all of the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts).  Over the 2014-2022 period, that implies a total reduction in revenues of about $4.9 trillion, relative to current tax policy.” [Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 5/21/12]

Reuters Headline: “Romney Tax Plan Helps Rich, Hurts Middle Class-Study.” [Reuters, 8/1/12]

Boston Globe Headline: “Mitt Romney’s Tax Plan Would Offer Big Cuts To Millionaires, Raise Taxes On Middle Class, Brookings Analysts Say.” [Boston Globe, 8/1/12]

Washington Post Editorial: The Tax Policy Center Found That Under The Romney Plan “Even If Every Loophole For The Top Brackets Were Closed, There Wouldn’t Be Enough Revenue. The Middle Class Would Have To Pay More.” “The Tax Policy Center (TPC), a joint venture of the Urban Institute and the Brookings Institution, examined Mr. Romney’s claim and found that, even if every loophole for the top brackets were closed, there wouldn’t be enough revenue. The middle class would have to pay more.” [Editorial, Washington Post, 8/21/12]

ROMNEY’S TAX PLAN WOULD GIVE MULTI-MILLIONAIRES A $250,000 TAX CUT ON THE BACKS THE MIDDLE CLASS – MIDDLE CLASS FAMILIES WITH KIDS WOULD SEE AN AVERAGE TAX INCREASE OF $2,000

If Romney’s Tax Plan Was Paid For, Families With Kids Who Make Less Than $200,000 Would See An Average Tax Increase Of $2,041. [Tax Policy Center, On The Distributional Effects Of Base-Broadening Income Tax Reform, p. 18, 8/1/12]

If Romney’s Tax Plan Was Paid For, The Top 0.1% Would See An Average Tax Cut Of $246,652. [Tax Policy Center, On The Distributional Effects Of Base-Broadening Income Tax Reform, p. 19, 8/1/12]

Congressman Ryan just claimed the Romney-Ryan Medicare voucher plan is bipartisan and is rooted in the recommendations of a 1990s Clinton commission. But that’s just not true – Senator Ron Wyden voted against the Ryan budget and has condemned their Medicare plan. Romney and Ryan are just trying to hide that their plan for Medicare is to turn it into a voucher program, increasing costs for seniors by more than $6,000 a year.

SEN. WYDEN: ROMNEY IS “TALKING NONSENSE” - “I SPOKE AND VOTED AGAINST THE MEDICARE PROVISION IN THE RYAN BUDGET”

Oregonian Headline: “Sen. Wyden Says Romney Is 'Talking Nonsense' About Wyden's Medicare Work With Paul Ryan” [Oregonian, 8/11/12]

Roll Call Headline: “Ron Wyden Takes Issue With Mitt Romney Linking Him To Paul Ryan.” [Roll Call, 8/12/12]

Senator Wyden Said Romney Was “Talking Nonsense” When Touting Ryan As A Bipartisan In Reference To Ryan’s Work On Medicare. “Romney, in his second appearance with Ryan Saturday after naming him to the GOP presidential ticket, praised Ryan's willingness to reach across party lines. ‘This man said I'm going to find Democrats to work with,’ Romney said. Then, refering to Wyden and Ryan's work on Medicare, Romney added, ‘He found a Democrat to co-lead a piece of legislation.’ Wyden fired back Saturday evening that Romney is ‘talking nonsense.’” [Oregonian, 8/11/12]

• Sen. Ron Wyden: “Gov. Romney Needs To Learn You Don’t Protect Seniors By Makings Things Up, And His Comments Today Sure Won’t Help Promote Real Bipartisanship.” [Roll Call, 8/12/12]

• Sen. Ron Wyden: “Bipartisanship Requires That You Not Make Up The Facts.” [Roll Call, 8/12/12]

Senator Wyden: “I Did Not ‘Co-Lead A Piece Of Legislation’” With Ryan And “I Spoke And Voted Against The Medicare Provisions In The Ryan Budget.” Senator Wyden: “Bipartisanship requires that you not make up the facts. I did not ‘co-lead a piece of legislation.’ I wrote a policy paper on options for Medicare. Several months after the paper came out I spoke and voted against the Medicare provisions in the Ryan budget.  Governor Romney needs to learn you don't protect seniors by makings things up, and his comments today sure won't help promote real bipartisanship.” [Oregonian, 8/11/12]

Oregonian: “Wyden Has Repeatedly Said That The Medicare Plan That Ryan Pushed Through The Republican-Led House Is Different From The ‘Policy Paper’ That He Produced With Ryan.” [Oregonian, 8/11/12]

2012: SENATOR WYDEN VOTED AGAINST THE RYAN BUDGET

Sen. Wyden Voted Against Ryan Budget. In 2012, Wyden voted against the motion to proceed to Rep. Ryan’s budget proposal. [Senate Vote #98, 5/16/12]

THE ROMNEY-RYAN PLAN WOULD END MEDICARE AS WE KNOW IT – TURNING IT INTO A VOUCHER SYSTEM…

New York Magazine’s Jonathan Chait: President Obama’s Argument That Romney Would “End Medicare As We Know It” Is “Undeniably True.” “Today President Obama talks Medicare in Florida and argues that Mitt Romney will ‘end Medicare as we know it.’ The claim is undeniably true, though keep in mind that ‘as we know it’ is a fairly elastic term.” [Jonathan Chait, New York Magazine, 7/19/12]

Romney Adviser Tara Wall Said Romney And Ryan “Are Certainly 100% On The Same Page And On The Same Path Relative To Saying That We Have To Reform Medicare, Offering Options Like Vouchers.” [CNN Newsroom, CNN, 8/14/12]

Romney: “Paul Ryan And My Plan For Medicare I Think Is The Same, If Not Identical It's Probably Close To Identical.” [WBAY (Green Bay, WI), 8/15/12]

• Bloomberg: “Ryan’s Budget Bill Also Would End Traditional Medicare By Capping Spending And Offer Vouchers To Buy Private Insurance.” [Bloomberg, 8/13/12]

• Romney’s Medicare Plan: “Medicare Is Reformed As A Premium Support System, Meaning That Existing Spending Is Repackaged As A Fixed-Amount Benefit To Each Senior That He Or She Can Use To Purchase An Insurance Plan.” [Romney Press Release, Spending Plan – “Cut The Spending,” 11/4/11]

• Reuters: “Ryan's Plan Calls For An End To The Guaranteed Benefit In Medicare And Replaces It With A System That Would Give Vouchers To Recipients To Pay For Health Insurance.” [Reuters, 8/12/12]

…WHICH WOULD SHIFT MORE COSTS ON TO SENIORS AND INCREASES COSTS BY MORE THAN $6,000 EACH YEAR

Los Angeles Times Headline: “Seniors Would Pay The Price Of Ryan’s Plan To Overhaul Medicare.” [Los Angeles Times, 8/13/12]

Los Angeles Times: Under The Ryan Budget “Seniors Would End Up Paying Almost Twice As Much Out Of Their Own Pockets.” [Los Angeles Times, 4/7/11]

New York Times Editorial: Ryan’s Plan Would Turn Medicare Into A Voucher System And “Would Leave Older Americans On Average With $6,400 In Extra Costs By 2022, According To The Congressional Budget Office.” “Most voters know little about Mr. Ryan. Those who have heard of him are probably most familiar with his Medicare plan, which would turn the program into a voucher system that would pay beneficiaries a fixed amount for their medical care, leaving them on their own if the voucher did not cover their costs. This notion so alarmed the public last year that Mr. Ryan was forced to backtrack and leave the existing Medicare system as an option. Even so, the plan would leave older Americans on average with $6,400 in extra costs by 2022, according to the Congressional Budget Office.” [Editorial, New York Times, 8/13/12]

• Center On Budget And Policy Priorities: Under Ryan’s Plan, Seniors On Medicare Would Pay $6,350 More In Out-Of-Pocket Costs By 2022. [Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, Off the Charts blog, 4/8/11]

Harvard’s David Cutler: Even Analyzed, “Conservatively,” A Voucher Plan Like Romney’s Could Increases Costs By $6,800 A Year “For A Person Reaching Eligibility Age In 2030.” “In 2011, CBO released an analysis of Ryan’s first premium support plan, which replaced traditional Medicare with vouchers that seniors would use to help pay for private insurance.  The CBO found that it would cost private plans 39% more than traditional Medicare to deliver the same services. There were two reasons for this: first, private plans have higher administrative costs (including profits), and second they have less bargaining power and therefore would need to pay higher rates to providers. That 39% works out to an extra $6,400 a year for a typical 65 year old in 2030. Under the new premium support plan, which our paper analyzed, all new retirees receive a voucher that they can use to buy coverage from a private plan or from traditional Medicare. Because traditional Medicare is still an option, the erosion of bargaining power under the new Romney-Ryan plan is less immediate. Still, it is there. Anything that moves a significant share of people out of traditional Medicare will mean that Medicare has to pay more to ensure access. Conservatively, we estimated that the total extra costs to care for seniors in the future would be half what CBO estimated – 19.5% rather than 39% – and that effect would take 10 years to phase in. Adding these amounts over expected lifetimes yields the numbers we reported in our previous analysis. To show what this implies on an annual basis, we divide the increase in real costs by years of life remaining as of the age of Medicare eligibility.  Figure 3 shows the results.  The additional costs are $3,200 annually for a person reaching eligibility age in 2023, $6,800 annually for a person reaching eligibility age in 2030, $12,000 annually for a person reaching eligibility age in 2040, and $17,800 annually for a person reaching eligibility age in 2050.” [David Cutler, A Follow-Up on the Analysis of the Romney-Ryan Medicare Plan, 10/2/12]

• Harvard’s David Cutler: “Even Under The Revised Voucher Proposal, The Additional Cost To Enroll In Medicare For The Vast Bulk Of People Will Be $6,000 Annually Or More.” [David Cutler, A Follow-Up on the Analysis of the Romney-Ryan Medicare Plan, 10/2/12]

Congressman Ryan just claimed the Romney-Ryan Medicare voucher plan is bipartisan and is rooted in the recommendations of a 1990s Clinton commission. But that’s just not true – Senator Ron Wyden voted against the Ryan budget and has condemned their Medicare plan. Romney and Ryan are just trying to hide that their plan for Medicare is to turn it into a voucher program, increasing costs for seniors by more than $6,000 a year.

SEN. WYDEN: ROMNEY IS “TALKING NONSENSE” - “I SPOKE AND VOTED AGAINST THE MEDICARE PROVISION IN THE RYAN BUDGET”

Oregonian Headline: “Sen. Wyden Says Romney Is 'Talking Nonsense' About Wyden's Medicare Work With Paul Ryan” [Oregonian, 8/11/12]

Roll Call Headline: “Ron Wyden Takes Issue With Mitt Romney Linking Him To Paul Ryan.” [Roll Call, 8/12/12]

Senator Wyden Said Romney Was “Talking Nonsense” When Touting Ryan As A Bipartisan In Reference To Ryan’s Work On Medicare. “Romney, in his second appearance with Ryan Saturday after naming him to the GOP presidential ticket, praised Ryan's willingness to reach across party lines. ‘This man said I'm going to find Democrats to work with,’ Romney said. Then, refering to Wyden and Ryan's work on Medicare, Romney added, ‘He found a Democrat to co-lead a piece of legislation.’ Wyden fired back Saturday evening that Romney is ‘talking nonsense.’” [Oregonian, 8/11/12]

• Sen. Ron Wyden: “Gov. Romney Needs To Learn You Don’t Protect Seniors By Makings Things Up, And His Comments Today Sure Won’t Help Promote Real Bipartisanship.” [Roll Call, 8/12/12]

• Sen. Ron Wyden: “Bipartisanship Requires That You Not Make Up The Facts.” [Roll Call, 8/12/12]

Senator Wyden: “I Did Not ‘Co-Lead A Piece Of Legislation’” With Ryan And “I Spoke And Voted Against The Medicare Provisions In The Ryan Budget.” Senator Wyden: “Bipartisanship requires that you not make up the facts. I did not ‘co-lead a piece of legislation.’ I wrote a policy paper on options for Medicare. Several months after the paper came out I spoke and voted against the Medicare provisions in the Ryan budget.  Governor Romney needs to learn you don't protect seniors by makings things up, and his comments today sure won't help promote real bipartisanship.” [Oregonian, 8/11/12]

Oregonian: “Wyden Has Repeatedly Said That The Medicare Plan That Ryan Pushed Through The Republican-Led House Is Different From The ‘Policy Paper’ That He Produced With Ryan.” [Oregonian, 8/11/12]

2012: SENATOR WYDEN VOTED AGAINST THE RYAN BUDGET

Sen. Wyden Voted Against Ryan Budget. In 2012, Wyden voted against the motion to proceed to Rep. Ryan’s budget proposal. [Senate Vote #98, 5/16/12]

THE ROMNEY-RYAN PLAN WOULD END MEDICARE AS WE KNOW IT – TURNING IT INTO A VOUCHER SYSTEM…

New York Magazine’s Jonathan Chait: President Obama’s Argument That Romney Would “End Medicare As We Know It” Is “Undeniably True.” “Today President Obama talks Medicare in Florida and argues that Mitt Romney will ‘end Medicare as we know it.’ The claim is undeniably true, though keep in mind that ‘as we know it’ is a fairly elastic term.” [Jonathan Chait, New York Magazine, 7/19/12]

Romney Adviser Tara Wall Said Romney And Ryan “Are Certainly 100% On The Same Page And On The Same Path Relative To Saying That We Have To Reform Medicare, Offering Options Like Vouchers.” [CNN Newsroom, CNN, 8/14/12]

Romney: “Paul Ryan And My Plan For Medicare I Think Is The Same, If Not Identical It's Probably Close To Identical.” [WBAY (Green Bay, WI), 8/15/12]

• Bloomberg: “Ryan’s Budget Bill Also Would End Traditional Medicare By Capping Spending And Offer Vouchers To Buy Private Insurance.” [Bloomberg, 8/13/12]

• Romney’s Medicare Plan: “Medicare Is Reformed As A Premium Support System, Meaning That Existing Spending Is Repackaged As A Fixed-Amount Benefit To Each Senior That He Or She Can Use To Purchase An Insurance Plan.” [Romney Press Release, Spending Plan – “Cut The Spending,” 11/4/11]

• Reuters: “Ryan's Plan Calls For An End To The Guaranteed Benefit In Medicare And Replaces It With A System That Would Give Vouchers To Recipients To Pay For Health Insurance.” [Reuters, 8/12/12]

…WHICH WOULD SHIFT MORE COSTS ON TO SENIORS AND INCREASES COSTS BY MORE THAN $6,000 EACH YEAR

Los Angeles Times Headline: “Seniors Would Pay The Price Of Ryan’s Plan To Overhaul Medicare.” [Los Angeles Times, 8/13/12]

Los Angeles Times: Under The Ryan Budget “Seniors Would End Up Paying Almost Twice As Much Out Of Their Own Pockets.” [Los Angeles Times, 4/7/11]

New York Times Editorial: Ryan’s Plan Would Turn Medicare Into A Voucher System And “Would Leave Older Americans On Average With $6,400 In Extra Costs By 2022, According To The Congressional Budget Office.” “Most voters know little about Mr. Ryan. Those who have heard of him are probably most familiar with his Medicare plan, which would turn the program into a voucher system that would pay beneficiaries a fixed amount for their medical care, leaving them on their own if the voucher did not cover their costs. This notion so alarmed the public last year that Mr. Ryan was forced to backtrack and leave the existing Medicare system as an option. Even so, the plan would leave older Americans on average with $6,400 in extra costs by 2022, according to the Congressional Budget Office.” [Editorial, New York Times, 8/13/12]

• Center On Budget And Policy Priorities: Under Ryan’s Plan, Seniors On Medicare Would Pay $6,350 More In Out-Of-Pocket Costs By 2022. [Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, Off the Charts blog, 4/8/11]

Harvard’s David Cutler: Even Analyzed, “Conservatively,” A Voucher Plan Like Romney’s Could Increases Costs By $6,800 A Year “For A Person Reaching Eligibility Age In 2030.” “In 2011, CBO released an analysis of Ryan’s first premium support plan, which replaced traditional Medicare with vouchers that seniors would use to help pay for private insurance.  The CBO found that it would cost private plans 39% more than traditional Medicare to deliver the same services. There were two reasons for this: first, private plans have higher administrative costs (including profits), and second they have less bargaining power and therefore would need to pay higher rates to providers. That 39% works out to an extra $6,400 a year for a typical 65 year old in 2030. Under the new premium support plan, which our paper analyzed, all new retirees receive a voucher that they can use to buy coverage from a private plan or from traditional Medicare. Because traditional Medicare is still an option, the erosion of bargaining power under the new Romney-Ryan plan is less immediate. Still, it is there. Anything that moves a significant share of people out of traditional Medicare will mean that Medicare has to pay more to ensure access. Conservatively, we estimated that the total extra costs to care for seniors in the future would be half what CBO estimated – 19.5% rather than 39% – and that effect would take 10 years to phase in. Adding these amounts over expected lifetimes yields the numbers we reported in our previous analysis. To show what this implies on an annual basis, we divide the increase in real costs by years of life remaining as of the age of Medicare eligibility.  Figure 3 shows the results.  The additional costs are $3,200 annually for a person reaching eligibility age in 2023, $6,800 annually for a person reaching eligibility age in 2030, $12,000 annually for a person reaching eligibility age in 2040, and $17,800 annually for a person reaching eligibility age in 2050.” [David Cutler, A Follow-Up on the Analysis of the Romney-Ryan Medicare Plan, 10/2/12]

• Harvard’s David Cutler: “Even Under The Revised Voucher Proposal, The Additional Cost To Enroll In Medicare For The Vast Bulk Of People Will Be $6,000 Annually Or More.” [David Cutler, A Follow-Up on the Analysis of the Romney-Ryan Medicare Plan, 10/2/12]

Congressman Ryan just attacked President Obama for “cutting” $716 billion from Medicare, which independent fact checkers have confirmed repeatedly is just not true. And Ryan should know – while assuming the complete repeal of Obamacare in his own budget, there was one thing he did leave in – the very same savings from rooting out waste, fraud, and excessive insurance company subsidies he’s now attacking.

THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT EXTENDS THE SOLVENCY OF MEDICARE PART A TO 2024, CUTS WASTE AND FRAUD IN MEDICARE, AND STRENGTHENS BENEFITS FOR SENIORS

AARP:  The Affordable Care Act “Protects And Strengthens Guaranteed Benefits In Medicare.”  “The legislative package [the Affordable Care Act] cracks down on insurance company abuses and protects and strengthens guaranteed benefits in Medicare, the program millions of our members depend on and in which millions more will soon enroll. It closes the dreaded Medicare Part D ‘doughnut hole,’ a gap in prescription drug coverage that is life-threatening for many. … And it improves efforts to crack down on fraud and waste in Medicare, strengthening the program for today’s seniors and future generations.” [AARP Press Release, 3/10/12]

Cleveland Plain Dealer Politifact Has Rated The Assertion That The Affordable Care Act Cuts Medicare False. “The NRSC’s claim cites a real figure -- $500 billion -- that is part of the health reform debate. But it incorrectly describes it as $500 billion in Medicare cuts, rather than as decreases in the rate of growth of future spending. And the NRSC piles on the incorrect talking point about "government-run health care. On the Truth-Meter, the NRSC’s claim rates as False.” [Cleveland Plain Dealer, Politifact, 06/09/11]

• New York Times Editorial Board: “$716 Billion Is Not A ‘Cut’ In Benefits But Rather The Savings In Costs That The Congressional Budget Office Projects Over The Next Decade From Wholly Reasonable Provisions In The Reform Law.”  “A Republican attack ad says that the reform law has “cut” $716 billion from Medicare, with the money used to expand coverage to low-income people who are currently uninsured….In reality, the $716 billion is not a ‘cut’ in benefits but rather the savings in costs that the Congressional Budget Office projects over the next decade from wholly reasonable provisions in the reform law.”  [Editorial, New York Times, 8/18/12]

The Affordable Care Act Extends The Solvency Of Medicare Part A To 2024, Eight Years Longer Than Without Health Care Reform. “The Medicare Trustees Report released today shows that the Hospital Insurance (HI) Trust Fund is expected to remain solvent until 2024, the same as last year’s estimate, but action is needed to secure its long-term future.  In 2011, the HI Trust Fund expenditures were lower than expected. Without the Affordable Care Act, the HI Trust Fund would expire 8 years earlier, in 2016. ” [Center For Medicare & Medicaid Services, 04/23/12]

ABC News Fact Check: Spending Will Be Reduced By Getting Rid of Fraud and Ending Overpayment To Private Insurance Companies.” “Medicare spending will continue to grow, according to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), but ACA will slow that growth….spending will be reduced by getting rid of fraud and ending overpayments to private insurance companies. It sends a message to those insurance companies: Operate more efficiently.”  [ABC News, 6/28/12]

The Affordable Care Act Closes The Prescription Drug Coverage Gap—The “Doughnut Hole”—In Medicare Part D By 2020. “The Affordable Care Act includes benefits to make your Medicare prescription drug coverage (Part D) more affordable. It does this by gradually closing the gap in drug coverage known as the ‘Donut Hole.’... the gap is closed in 2020.” [healthcare.gov, 08/03/11]

• In The First 8 Months Of 2012 Alone, Medicare Beneficiaries In The Doughnut Hole Saved On Average Over $641 On Their Prescription Drugs. “Seniors in the Medicare prescription drug coverage gap known as the donut hole have saved an average of $641 in the first eight months of 2012 alone.” [Department of Health and Human Services, Press Release, 9/21/12]

RYAN’S BUDGETS RETAINED THE SAME MEDICARE SAVINGS HE AND ROMNEY ARE CRITICIZING

Romney “Papers Over” The Important Fact That “Ryan’s Budget Blueprints — Which Republicans Overwhelmingly Voted For In 2011 And 2012 — Includes The Same [Medicare] Cuts He’s Slamming.” “‘There’s only one president that I know of in history that robbed Medicare — $716 billion to pay for a new risky program of his own that we call Obamacare,’ Romney said in a CBS interview Sunday evening.  The claim is central to Romney’s strategy of deflecting attacks on his vice presidential pick’s plan to remake Medicare. But it papers over important facts, one of which is Ryan’s budget blueprints — which Republicans overwhelmingly voted for in 2011 and 2012 — includes the same cuts he’s slamming.” [Talking Points Memo, 8/13/12]

Ryan’s Budgets – Which Nearly Every House And Senate Republican Voted For – Included The Medicare Savings Passed In Obamacare. “Ryan's budget proposal also includes complete repeal of the ACA, with one little-noticed exception, the $500 billion in ACA Medicare reductions. Oh. Nearly every House and Senate Republican votes for the Ryan proposal. In the spring of 2012, Ryan again releases the plan, and includes the same repeal of the ACA, minus the Medicare reductions, now approaching $700B. And, again, nearly every House Republican votes for the plan.” [The Boston Globe, Health Stew blog, 8/12/12]

New York Times Editorial: “In Reality, The $716 Billion Is Not A ‘Cut’ In Benefits But Rather The Savings In Costs That The Congressional Budget Office Projects Over The Next Decade From Wholly Reasonable Provisions In The Reform Law.” [Editorial, New York Times, 8/18/12]

 

 

While Congressman Ryan attacked the Recovery Act tonight, he apparently forgot to check his own record. As Congressman, he understood that the Recovery Act was helping to create jobs and sent letters to federal agencies asking for Recovery Act dollars to help create jobs in his district.

ROMNEY CALLED FOR CONGRESS AND THE PRESIDENT TO “MOVE QUICKLY” ON THEIR STIMULUS PLAN

JANUARY 2009: Romney Said Obama Should “Move Quickly” On The Proposed $750 Billion Stimulus Package Because We Are In “Unusual Times” And “A Stimulus Program Is Needed.” “BLITZER: He’s talking about a $750 billion economic stimulus package. He wants it to be passed as soon as possible. It’s unclear if whether it can be passed before he’s inaugurated on January 20th. What do you think about this proposal? ROMNEY: Well, I frankly wish that the last Congress would have dealt with the stimulus issue and that the president could assign that before leaving office. I think there is need for economic stimulus. Americans have lost about $11 trillion in net worth. That translates into about $400 billion a year less spending that they’ll be doing, and that’s net of additional government programs like Medicaid and unemployment insurance. And government can help make that up in a very difficult time. And that’s one of the reasons why I think a stimulus program is needed. I’d move quickly. These are unusual times. But it has to be something which relieves pressure on middle-income families. I think a tax cut is necessary for them as well as for businesses that are growing. We’ll be investing in infrastructure and in energy technologies.” [CNN, Late Edition, 1/4/09]

ROMNEY PRAISED THE PRESIDENT’S STIMULUS PLAN SAYING IT WAS “ENCOURAGING” AND “WILL ACCELERATE THE TIMING OF THE START OF THE RECOVERY”

JANUARY 16, 2009: Romney Praised Obama’s Proposed Stimulus As “Encouraging” For Having A “Healthy Dose Of Tax Reductions.” Romney said, “Well, Mika, I don't think I'm going to top what we heard from Leader Boehner, but I can tell you that, in my view, the president's willingness, his rhetoric to say, look, he's going to reach across the aisle, he wants to seek the input from members of our party -- that's a very encouraging sign. The president's plan for economic recovery, including a stimulus bill which includes a very healthy dose of tax reductions, is something which I think showed a willingness to actually listen to some of his own economic advisers that have pointed out in their research that tax reductions have a bigger economic stimulus impact than spending money on infrastructure does. That’s encouraging.” [Morning Joe, 1/16/09]

Romney: “The ‘All-Democrat’ Stimulus That Was Passed In Early 2009 Will Accelerate The Timing Of The Start Of The Recovery.” Romney: “The ‘all-democrat’ stimulus that was passed in early 2009 will accelerate the timing of the start of the recovery, but not as much as it could have had it included genuine tax- and job-generating incentives.” [Romney, No Apology: The Case For American Greatness, 158]

RYAN WROTE AT LEAST FOUR LETTERS ASKING FOR MILLIONS IN STIMULUS

Associated Press: “Ryan Himself Asked For Stimulus Funds,” Including Over $20 Million For The Wisconsin Energy Conservation Corp.” ‘RYAN: "The stimulus was a case of political patronage, corporate welfare and cronyism at their worst. You, the working men and women of this country, were cut out of the deal.’ THE FACTS: Ryan himself asked for stimulus funds shortly after Congress approved the $800 billion plan, known as the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. Ryan's pleas to federal agencies included letters to Energy Secretary Steven Chu and Labor Secretary Hilda Solis seeking stimulus grant money for two Wisconsin energy conservation companies. One of them, the nonprofit Wisconsin Energy Conservation Corp., received $20.3 million from the Energy Department to help homes and businesses improve energy efficiency, according to federal records. That company, he said in his letter, would build ‘sustainable demand for green jobs.’ Another eventual recipient, the Energy Center of Wisconsin, received about $365,000.” [Associated Press, 8/30/12]

2009: The Same Year He “Was Railing Against The $787 Billion Stimulus Package” Ryan “Wrote At Least Four Letters To Obama’s Secretary Of Energy Asking That Millions Of Dollars From The Program Be Granted To A Pair Of Wisconsin Conservation Groups.”  “In 2009, as Rep. Paul D. Ryan was railing against President Obama’s $787 billion stimulus package as a ‘wasteful spending spree,’ he wrote at least four letters to Obama’s secretary of energy asking that millions of dollars from the program be granted to a pair of Wisconsin conservation groups, according to documents obtained by the Globe. The advocacy appeared to pay off; both groups were awarded the economic recovery funds—one receiving a $20 million grant to help thousands of local businesses and homes improve their energy efficiency, agency documents show.” [Boston Globe, 8/14/12]

Asking For Stimulus Funds From The Department Of Energy, Ryan Claimed The Project In Question Could “Create Or Retain Approximately 7,600 New Jobs Over The 3 Year Grant Period And The Subsequent 3 Years.” [Ryan Letter to the U.S. Department of Energy, 12/18/09]

• CNN: In One Of The Stimulus Request Letters, Ryan Wrote That The Project “Will Stimulate The Local And Area Economy By Creating New Jobs.” SOLEDAD O'BRIEN, CNN ANCHOR: “In 2009, Congressman Ryan wrote to the Departments of Energy and Labor seeking stimulus money for a pair of local green energy companies. One ended up with more than $20 million. And Congressman Ryan, who you will remember sounded so skeptical that stimulus would create any jobs, he writes that the company in question believes it will -- quote – ‘create or retain approximately 7,600 new jobs over the three-year grant period’ and -- quote – ‘I was pleased that the primary objectives of the project will stimulate the local and area economy by creating new jobs,’ and at the bottom of each letter, ‘Sincerely, Paul Ryan.’” [CNN, 8/17/12]

In tonight’s debate, Congressman Ryan cited Mitt Romney’s 5-point economic plan and said that it would help create jobs.  He wasn’t telling the truth.

Independent economists have said that Romney’s plans could slow the economic recovery and eliminate jobs, and that his tax plan doesn’t add up.  Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan have a plan:  to return to the policies that crashed the economy and devastated the middle class.

Here are the facts:

ROMNEY PROMISES ENERGY INDEPENDENCE

REALITY: ROMNEY’S PLAN IS BASED ON OIL DRILLING AND CUTTING OFF INVESTMENTS IN RENEWABLE ENERGY – BUT WE CAN’T DRILL OUR WANT TO ENERGY INDEPENDENCE

Romney Has The “View That The Government Should Cut Off Aid To Renewable Energy.” “Romney’s view that the government should cut off aid to renewable energy marks a reversal for the candidate.” [Washington Post, 6/8/12]

• TIME: “Romney Has Suggested That Wind And Solar Are ‘Imaginary’ Sources Of Energy, But They Can Now Power 15 Million Homes, And Their Industries Employ More Than 300,000 Americans. That’s Real.” “Before President Obama took office, the U.S. had 25 gigawatts of wind power, and the government’s ‘base case’ energy forecast expected 40 GW by 2030. Well, it’s not quite 2030 yet, but we’ve already got 50 GW of wind. We’ve also got about 5 GW of solar, which isn’t much, but is over six times more than we had before Obama. Mitt Romney has suggested that wind and solar are ‘imaginary’ sources of energy, but they can now power 15 million homes, and their industries employ more than 300,000 Americans. That’s real.” [Michael Grunwald, TIME, 8/10/12]
• The Hill Headline: “Romney Campaign: Let Wind Energy Credit Die This Year.” [The Hill, 7/30/12]

• Romney Would Keep $4 Billion A Year In Tax Incentives And Tax Breaks For Oil And Gas Drilling. Romney’s energy positions include: “Keep tax incentives and tax breaks for oil and gas drilling. These amount to about $4 billion a year.” [Washington Post, 9/11/12]

Washington Post: “Romney’s Plan Spends A Lot Of Time Talking About Drilling” But “Energy Independence Will Require More Than Just Drilling — It Will Also Depend On Efficiency Standards That Romney Has Opposed.” “Energy independence will require more than just drilling — it will also depend on efficiency standards that Romney has opposed. Mitt Romney’s plan spends a lot of time talking about drilling. But it’s worth noting that both the EIA and Citigroup credit the Obama administration’s new fuel-economy standards for cars and light trucks as a major part of America’s lurch toward energy independence. By 2025, the increased CAFE standards are expected to reduce U.S. oil consumption by about 2.2 million barrels per day. Without those rules, energy independence looks nearly impossible. And Romney, for his part, has pledged to overturn those fuel-economy rules.” [Wonk Blog, Washington Post, 8/23/12]

ROMNEY PROMISES TO GET TRADE TO WORK WITH A “CRACK DOWN ON CHINA WHEN THE CHEAT”

REALITY: ROMNEY CRITICIZED PRESIDENT OBAMA FOR IMPOSING TARIFFS ON CHINESE TIRES CALLING IT “PROTECTIONISM” AND “BAD FOR THE NATION AND OUR WORKERS”

Romney Attacked Obama’s Chinese Tire Tariffs As “Bad For The Nation And Our Workers” And Called It “Protectionism.” “President Obama’s action to defend American tire companies from foreign competition may make good politics by repaying unions for their support of his campaign, but it is decidedly bad for the nation and our workers. Protectionism stifles productivity.” [Romney, No Apology: Case for American Greatness, Page 119 (audio available), released 3/2/10]

The International Trade Commission Estimated That Tariffs On Chinese Tires Would Save The Equivalent Of Approximately 1,200 American Jobs. “Commissioner Lane notes that in the first year of relief, the average of the outcomes from the COMPAS Model shows that the domestic industry’s domestic sales are likely to increase by approximately 6.8 million units on average. Although the model does not specifically project the impact of such an  increase in output on employment, at the highest level of productivity reflected in the period of investigation 6.8 million tires would equate to over 2.3 million additional hours for production related workers in the industry. While these hours may be a combination of additional hours for existing employees and new jobs, they nevertheless equate to nearly 1,200 jobs on a full-time basis.” [International Trade Commission Report, July 2009

President Obama Has Brought Trade Cases Against China At Twice The Rate Of His Predecessor. The Obama Administration has filed 8  complaints against China with the World Trade Organization. Under the eight years of the Bush Administration, the U.S. filed 7 complaints against China with the WTO. [WTO List Of Disputes Cases, Accessed 9/15/12; Cleveland Plain Dealer, 9/16/12]

ROMNEY PROMISES TO IMPROVE EDUCATION

THE ROMNEY-RYAN BUDGET COULD CUT MORE THAN $115 BILLION FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION OVER THE NEXT DECADE

If Cuts Were Applied Across The Board, The Ryan Budget Would Slash Education, “The Department Of Education Would Be Cut By More Than $115 Billion Over A Decade.” “Yesterday, House Republicans released their budget resolution for FY 2013… On top of the roughly $1 trillion in cuts in the Budget Control Act, it would be difficult to overstate the radicalism of the domestic cuts proposed by the House budget resolution. In 2013, it would cut annual non-defense funding by 5 percent. By 2014, the resolution would cut this funding by 19 percent in purely nominal terms… The Department of Education would be cut by more than $115 billion over a decade.” [Jeff Zients, Acting Director of the Office of Management and Budget, WH.gov, 3/21/12]

• If Cuts Were Applied Across The Board, The Ryan Budget Would Cut Elementary And Secondary Education Funding By $4.8 Billion. According to the White House, cuts to elementary and secondary education, special education funding would total $4,847,000,000 under the Ryan Budget. [White House, 4/6/12]

ROMNEY’S PLAN: VOUCHERIZE AMERICA’S PUBLIC EDUCATION SYSTEM WHILE OFFERING NO PLAN TO FIX FAILING PUBLIC SCHOOLS                                  

Romney Proposed A “Voucher-Style System” For Education. “Shifting from the economy to education, Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney was proposing a voucher-style system that could significantly alter the public school system and revive the debate over school choice.” [Associated Press, 5/23/12]

Romney’s Education Plan Says That Students Should Be Allowed To Escape Failing Public Schools By Using Federal Dollars To Pay For Private Schools, Online Schools And Other Alternative Settings. “Calling it a ‘national education emergency,’ Mitt Romney said Wednesday that poor and disabled children should be allowed to escape failing public schools by using federal dollars to pay for private schools, online schools and other alternative settings.” [Washington Post, 5/23/12]

Former Education Secretary To George W. Bush Margaret Spellings Said She Stopped Advising Romney After He “Rejected Strong Federal Accountability Measures” Because Vouchers And Choice As Drivers Of Accountability Are “Untried And Untested.” “One notable skeptic is Margaret Spellings, a former education secretary under Mr. Bush, who this year was an informal adviser to Mr. Romney. She said she withdrew once the candidate rejected strong federal accountability measures.  ‘I have long supported and defended and believe in a muscular federal role on school accountability,’ Ms. Spellings said. ‘Vouchers and choice as the drivers of accountability — obviously that’s untried and untested.’” [New York Times, 6/11/12]

REALITY: ROMNEY WOULD RETURN THE MIDDLE MAN TO STUDENT LOANS AND SLASH FUNDING FOR PELL GRANTS

If Cuts Were Applied Across The Board, The Ryan Budget Would Slash Education, Meaning “9.6 Million Students Would See Their Pell Grants Fall By More Than $1000 In 2014, And, Over The Next Decade, Over One Million Students Would Lose Support Altogether.” [Jeff Zients, Acting Director of the Office of Management and Budget, WH.gov, 3/21/12]

Romney’s Proposal To Repeal President Obama’s Overhaul To The Federal Student Loan Program Would Be “A Return To Bank-Based Student Lending.” “The presumed Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney pledged Wednesday that, if elected, he would reshape or do away with two major Obama administration higher education policy initiatives: the overhaul of the federal student loan program and tighter regulations on for-profit colleges…He also calls for a return to bank-based student lending, which was phased out beginning in 2010 as part of the health care overhaul.” [Inside Higher Ed, 5/24/12]

• Steve Benen: Romney’s Education Agenda “Vows To Bring The Middleman Back” To The Student-Loan System. “One of the overlooked accomplishments of President Obama's term is the reform of the student-loan system -- an effort that was decades in the making, but had been blocked by Republicans and bank lobbyists until 2010. Under the old system, the student-loan industry received billions in taxpayer subsidies to provide a service the government could perform for less. As Rachel explained on the show a month ago, in 2010, Democrats removed the middleman, streamlined the process, saved taxpayers a ton of money, and helped more young people get college degrees. Yesterday, Mitt Romney unveiled a new education agenda, which vows to bring the middleman back.” [Steve Benen, MSNBC, 5/24/12]

 

ROMNEY CALLED PRESIDENT OBAMA “OUT OF TOUCH” FOR ENCOURAGING PEOPLE TO PURSUE MANUFACTURING JOBS

Romney Said “The President Seems To Be Out Of Touch” For Encouraging Young People To Pursue Manufacturing Jobs. “At the stop in Detroit, Romney said Obama showed he was ‘out of touch’ this week when he encouraged young people to pursue manufacturing jobs. ‘Last month, 5,000 people lost their jobs in manufacturing,’ Romney said. ‘The president seems to be out of touch.’” [Detroit News, 6/9/11]

Wall Street Journal: Romney “Twice This Month Said That The President Was Out Of Touch For Suggesting Young People Go Into Manufacturing” But “We Have Had Manufacturing Growth That Rivals The Levels Of The 1980s.”  Jonathan Weisman said in an interview on the manufacturing industry: “Actually, Obama sees and opening here because Mitt Romney, twice this month said that the president was ‘out of touch’ for suggesting young people go into manufacturing, go into community college to study, different kind of high-end manufacturing techniques and if fact if you look at the sort of sluggish recovery of jobs, manufacturing is one of the bright spots. Not particularly beaming but we have had good strong manufacturing growth. We have had manufacturing growth that rivals the levels of the 1980s.” [News Hub, Wall Street Journal, 6/24/11]

ROMNEY PROMISES TO CUT FEDERAL SPENDING

REALITY: ROMNEY PROPOSED $5 TRILLION IN NEW TAX CUTS AND $2 TRILLION IN ADDITIONAL DEFENSE SPENDING BUT THE ONLY SPECIFICS ROMNEY HAS LAID OUT “WOULD MAKE THE DEFICIT BIGGER, NOT SMALLER, AND ADD TO THE DEBT, NOT SUBTRACT FROM IT”

Los Angeles Times: “Romney Says He Wants To Balance The Budget Within Four Years, But He Has Not Spelled Out A Plan To Do So.” [Los Angeles Times, 8/27/12]

• Los Angeles Times: Romney Has Only Spoken In Specifics About Plans That “Would Make The Deficit Bigger, Not Smaller, And Add To The Debt, Not Subtract From It.” “Romney says he wants to balance the budget within four years, but he has not spelled out a plan to do so. Instead, most of the plans he has talked about specifically – significant new tax cuts, increased defense spending, no changes in Medicare or Social Security until people now 55 reach retirement age, postponing the automatic spending cuts scheduled to start Jan. 1 – would make the deficit bigger, not smaller,  and add to the debt, not subtract from it.” [Los Angeles Times, 8/27/12]

Center On Budget And Policy Priorities: Romney’s New Tax Cuts Would Cost $4.9 Trillion Over A Decade, On Top Of The Cost Of Extending The Bush Tax Cuts. “The Tax Policy Center estimates that the Romney tax plan would lose about $480 billion in tax revenue in calendar year 2015, beyond the revenues losses inherent in maintaining current policy (such as continuing all of the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts). Over the 2014-2022 period, that implies a total reduction in revenues of about $4.9 trillion, relative to current tax policy.” [Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 5/21/12]

• Washington Post Headline: “Romney Confirms His Tax Cuts Won’t Be Paid For.” [Greg Sargent , Washington Post, 8/3/12]

PolitiFact: “The President Said Romney Planned To Increase Defense Spending By $2 Trillion And That Was Money The Military Hadn’t Asked For… We Rate The Statement True.” “The president said Romney planned to increase defense spending by $2 trillion and that was money the military hadn’t asked for. Independent analysts confirm that number, and Romney did not deny it. Military leaders have testified in support of the president’s spending plan, and we found no evidence of disagreement behind the scenes. We rate the statement True.” [Politifact, 10/5/12]

• Wall Street Journal: “[Romney’s] Defense Spending Plans, Which Could Add Another $2 Trillion To The Budget Over The Next Decade, Further Complicate His Math.”   [Wall Street Journal, 8/13/12]

ROMNEY PROMISES TO CUT TAXES FOR SMALL BUSINESSES

REALITY: THE ROMNEY-RYAN TAX HIKE COULD RAISE TAXES FOR 30 MILLION SMALL BUSINESS OWNERS

If Romney’s Tax Plan Was Paid For, Taxpayers Making Less Than $200,000 Would See Average Tax Increases. [Tax Policy Center, On The Distributional Effects Of Base-Broadening Income Tax Reform, p. 16, 8/1/12]

• Politifact: “To Make Romney’s Plan Revenue Neutral,” Those Making Less Than $200,000 Would “See Outright Tax Increases.” “But to make Romney's plan revenue neutral, deductions would also have to be removed for people with incomes below $200,000, and the effects of that would be significant, the study found. In fact, the elimination of the deductions would mean outright tax increases for everyone with incomes below $200,000. People with taxable income between $50,000 and $75,000, for example, would see an average net tax increase of $641. They’d save $984 from Romney's rate cut, but lose $2,672 in write-offs.” [Politifact, 8/3/12]

Tax Policy Center: Nearly 30 Million Americans With Business Income Earn Less Than $200,000. According to Tax Policy Center data on tax units with business income, there are: 2,762,000 that earn less than $10,000; 3,089,000 that earn between $10,000 and $20,000; 2,983,000 that earn between $20,000 and $30,000; 2,904,000 that earn between $30,000 and $40,000; 2,558,000 that earn between $40,000 and $50,000; 4,796,000 that earn between $50,000 and $75,000; 3,861,000 that earn between $75,000 and $100,000; and 6,568,000 that make between $100,000 and $200,000. In total, there are 29,522,000 tax units with business income that earn less than $200,000. [Tax Policy Center, T11-0148 - Baseline Distribution of Business Income, by Cash Income Level; Current Law, 2011, 6/7/11]

REALITY: THE ROMNEY-RYAN BUDGET COULD CUT SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION FUNDING BY 19% – A CUT OF $170 MILLION

The Ryan Budget Would Cut Domestic Discretionary Spending By 19 Percent, And “Since The House Has Refused To Specify What Would Be Cut, We Consider The Impacts If The Cuts Are Distributed Equally Across The Budget.” “Yesterday, House Republicans released their budget resolution for FY 2013… On top of the roughly $1 trillion in cuts in the Budget Control Act, it would be difficult to overstate the radicalism of the domestic cuts proposed by the House budget resolution.  In 2013, it would cut annual non-defense funding by 5 percent.  By 2014, the resolution would cut this funding by 19 percent in purely nominal terms. Over a decade, the resolution would cut over $1 trillion in non-defense spending on top of the reductions the President has already signed into law.  The cuts in non-defense discretionary funding are nearly three times as deep as the cuts under the so-called sequester — cuts that we and most objective analysts have always regarded as an unwise and unacceptable. What would it all mean? The Budget doesn’t say.  In fact, the Budget resolution includes a magic asterisk — or, in more technical parlance, an ‘allowance’— for $897 billion in unspecified cuts. But what could the resolution mean?  Since the House has refused to specify what would be cut, we consider the impacts if the cuts are distributed equally across the Budget. The result would be that.” [Jeff Zients, Acting Director of the Office of Management and Budget, WH.gov, 3/21/12]

2012: The Enacted Small Business Administration Budget Was $900 Million. [Fiscal year 2013 Budget, Office of Management & Budget, p. 240]

 

Tonight, Americans saw a clash between facts and conviction on one side and glib lines and empty promises on the other. This debate showed that facts and details matter – and it’s clear tonight that with their total disregard for either, Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan know they can’t defend their indefensible plans. It exposed the extreme risk Romney-Ryan economics pose for American middle-class and to our leadership in the world. 

And with facts, convictions and straightforward answers, Vice President Biden illustrated how he’s spent a lifetime fighting for the middle class and how he and President Obama will continue doing so in a second term.

 

Read some of the early reactions to the debate below:

Biden Dominated Ryan…

CBS News @CBSNews .@CBSNews INSTANT POLL of Undecided Voters: Who won#VPdebate? BIDEN: 50% RYAN: 31% TIE: 19% Live Coverage:CBSNews.com

Larry Sabato@LarrySabato Pretty obvious that Biden had the edge in this debate. Ryan was workmanlike but Biden dominated.

Laura Rozen @lrozen Biden came off as more experienced, trustworthy MT@LarrySabato: Pretty obvious Biden had edge in debate. Ryan workmanlike Biden dominated.

Joe Hagan ‏@joehagansays Translation: Biden won. RT @ryanjreilly: RT @KarlRove: I miss Jim Lehrer.

Michael Hastings @mmhastings Media consensus forming? Biden easily handling Ryan...

David Gregory ‏@davidgregory Advantage here is for Biden. Swarming Ryan. Throwing a lot of punches. Talking a lot. Debating.

Michael Cohen @speechboy71 Agreed RT @davekarpf: I don't think it was a Biden win. I think it was Biden winmaggedon.

George Zornick @gzornick How you know Ryan lost: RT@thinkprogress: Right-wing trashing debate moderatorthkpr.gs/OXhiLY

Brett LoGiurato @BrettLoGiurato MSNBC declaring Biden the winner. Fox News focusing exclusively on Biden's smirking.#VPdebate

Garrett Haake @GarrettNBCNews  There's also this: hearing a lot of conservative sniping at Raddatz. Generally, complaining about the moderator means you think you lost

Larry Sabato ‏@LarrySabato You have to admit, Biden is on fire.

Andrew Sullivan @sullydishnow I think Ryan's inability to answer that question - how do you pay for it? - has to be the driving question now.thebea.st/VWXJFt

Paul Begala ‏@PaulBegala  Ryan on defense, big-time. As Mitt said, "If you're explaining, you're losing."

Sam Stein @samsteinhp fair to say Biden is speaking with details and Ryan in broad platitudes. reflects their backgrounds on this subject matter

 

Ryan Couldn’t Produce Details….

John Heilemann ‏@jheil Biden is a human Politifact tonight.

Sam Stein ‏@samsteinhp fair to say Biden is speaking with details and Ryan in broad platitudes. reflects their backgrounds on this subject matter

Jim Acosta @jimacostacnn Pressed for specifics on how to pay for their tax plan, Ryan declines: "Deny those loopholes and deductions" to wealthy but no details

TIMEPolitics ‏@TIMEPolitics “@michaelscherer: Killer question: If Romney elected "should those that believe abortion remain legal be worried"? Ryan had no clear answer"

David Firestone ‏@fstonenyt  Ryan caught without an actual position on when to leave Afghanistan.

Chuck Todd ‏@chucktodd Biden with one of the better responses to the $716B Medicare cut attack I've heard from them. Talking to seniors about donut hole; smart

Sam Stein @samsteinhp Paul Ryan seems to be unaware that there are revisions to past jobs reports

ThinkProgress ‏@thinkprogress Ryan claims the Ryan/Romney plan doesn't increase defense spending by $2 trillion. FALSE http://thkpr.gs/QTKS3X

Patricia Zengerle ‏@ReutersZengerle That $716 billion claim has been repeatedly disputed. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/oct/03/mitt-romney/romney-says-obama-cut-716-billion-medicare/ …

PolitiFact ‏@politifact  Are Romney-Ryan changing Medicare to voucher plan? That's Mostly True. http://ow.ly/epOS6  #debate

PolitiFact ‏@politifact  Six studies back up Romney tax plan? Mostly False. #debates http://ow.ly/epPgv

Josh Barro ‏@jbarro  Those "six studies" Ryan talks about? Five are op-eds and blog posts, two of them are by the same author, and none hold water.

Vice President Biden Had the Edge on the Economy…

Jacob Sullum@jacobsullum Biden is right about Bush's fiscal recklessness. It might help Ryan's credibility to acknowledge that.#debates

Andrew Sullivan ‏@sullydish Biden finally, finally hits back at the gall of Ryan and Romney and the Republicans in blaming the debt on Obama. http://thebea.st/VWXJFt

Katty Kay ‏@KattyKayBBC  Biden scoring better on that addictive CNN instant-poll when he talks about economy and the middle class.

Ezra Klein ‏@ezraklein  So will Romney-Ryan pledge to not pass any tax reform that doesn't include Dem votes? Cause if not, I don't get this answer.

 

Vice President Biden Has the Edge on Foreign Policy…

Wall Street Journal: “Is Mr. Biden's effort to highlight the coalition supporting the trade and financial sanctions on Iran a veiled dig at former President George W. Bush's decision to go to war in Iraq without much foreign backing? He seems to be calling Messrs. Ryan and Romney's bluff on the tough talk about Iran.”

Anthony De Rosa @AntDeRosa Ryan seems a bit out of his element talking about Iran, Biden has far more experience here

Sam Youngman @samyoungman You, sir, are no Ayatollah

Jennifer Epstein @jeneps lots of Ryan-Raddatz crosstalk. now Biden cutting in: "Let me tell you what the ayatollah sees, the economy crippled..."

John Heilemann @jheil Really, Ryan is just talking total crap on the sanctions against Iran.#fact

Jordan Fabian @Jordanfabian  Biden on Iran: "We will not let them acquire a nuclear weapon period." Suggests GOP might want to go to war with Iran. #debate2012

Michael Cohen @speechboy71 Pretty much nothing that Ryan just said on Iran is true.

Byron Tau ‏@ByronTau Doesn't Ryan's admission that they want to solve Iran without war undermine his credibility argument? Credibility would entail possible war?

 

 

###

Congressman Ryan just claimed that 20 million people will lose their employer-based coverage under Obamacare. That’s just not true, and independent fact checkers have said so. The truth is that Obamacare allows people to keep the coverage they have if they like it and incentivizes employer-based coverage. Romney and Ryan aren’t telling the truth about Obamacare because they don’t want the American people to know the devastating impact of what they’d do if elected – they’d allow insurance companies to discriminate against 89 million Americans who have had gaps in coverage if they have a pre-existing condition.

THE CLAIM THAT OBAMACARE WILL CAUSE 20  MILLION PEOPLE TO LOSE THE INSURANCE THEY CURRENTLY HAVE IS FALSE

Tampa Bay Times Politifact: Romney’s Claim That 20 Million People Will Lose The Insurance They Currently Have Is “False.” “Romney said that ‘Obamacare … means that for up to 20 million Americans, they will lose the insurance they currently have, the insurance that they like and they want to keep.’ That number is cherry-picked, and he’s wrong to describe it as only including people who ‘like’ their coverage, since many of those 20 million will be leaving employer coverage voluntarily for better options. Romney also ignores that under the status quo, many more people today ‘lose’ coverage than even the highest, cherry-picked CBO estimate. We rate his statement False.” [Tampa Bay Times, Politifact, 06/29/12]

The Congressional Budget Office Does Not Project Major Changes In The Number Of Workers Who Will Get Insurance Through Their Jobs. “Today’s report also does not project major changes in the number of workers who will get coverage through their job. At the time of passage CBO projected a change of 3 million people; last year CBO projected 1 million; this year 4 million – out of the roughly 150 million people get insurance through their job today.” [White House Blog, 03/14/12]

• The Congressional Budget Office: Employment-Based Health Insurance Coverage May Increase, Based On Massachusetts’s Experience. “One piece of evidence that may be relevant is the experience in Massachusetts, where employment-based health insurance coverage appeared to increase after that state’s reforms, which are similar but not identical to those in the ACA, were implemented.” [Congressional Budget Office, March 2012]

According To The Urban Institute, Employer-Sponsored Insurance Under The Affordable Care Act Would Not Significantly Differ From What Coverage Would Be Without Reform. “Overall ESI coverage under the ACA would not differ significantly from what coverage would be without reform. Small- and medium-firm ESI coverage would be almost unchanged, and large-firm ESI coverage would increase by just over 2 percentage point.” [Urban Institute, 01/2011]

Congressional Budget Office Director Doug Elmendorf: The Affordable Care Act Provides New Incentives For Employers To Offer Coverage. “The legislation leaves in place substantial financial advantages for many people to receive insurance coverage through their employers, and it provides some new incentives for employers to offer insurance coverage to their employees.” [Congressional Budget Office Director Doug Elmendorf Committee Testimony, 03/30/11]

According To A RAND Corporation Study, After Full Implementation Of The Affordable Care Act Businesses Will Frequently Choose To Offer Insurance Rather Than Drop Coverage. “After the ACA is implemented, firms making decisions on the basis of costs and benefits of their insurance options, including new subsidies and penalties, will frequently choose to offer insurance rather than to drop coverage and allow their workers to buy individual coverage.” [New England Journal of Medicine, 10/07/10]

Under The Affordable Care Act Beginning In 2014, Americans Cannot Be Denied Coverage If They Have A Pre-Existing Condition. “Up to one in five non-elderly Americans with a pre-existing condition – 25 million individuals – is uninsured.  Under the Affordable Care Act, starting in 2014, these Americans cannot be denied coverage, be charged significantly higher premiums, be subjected to an extended waiting period, or have their benefits curtailed by insurance companies.” [Healthcare.gov, Accessed 12/30/11]

• Those With Non-Continuous Coverage Add Up To Roughly 89 Million Americans, Or 36 Percent Of The Population, Between Age 4 and 65. “89 million Americans had at least a single one-month gap in insurance coverage. They were not, in other words, continually insured. That works out to 36 percent of the population between age 4 and 65.” [Washington Post, Wonk Blog, 9/10/12]

 

Contrary to what Congressman Ryan said tonight, President Obama was able to expand women’s access to contraception while protecting religious liberty by exempting churches and religiously-affiliated organizations from paying for contraceptive coverage. Mitt Romney and Congressman Ryan, on the other hand, would put women’s health care decisions in the hands of their employers. And Congressman Ryan has repeatedly stood with Todd Akin and extreme Republicans in Congress to restrict women’s access to contraception.

THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION PUT IN PLACE RULES THAT WILL ENSURE WOMEN CAN RECEIVE COVERAGE FOR CONTRACEPTION WHILE RESPECTING THE BELIEFS OF RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS

UNDER THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT, INSURERS WILL COVER CONTRACEPTION AND OTHER RECOMMENDED PREVENTIVE SERVICES FOR WOMEN  WITH NO OUT-OF-POCKET COSTS

Starting August 1, 2012, Under Obama Administration Health Care Guidelines, All FDA-Approved Forms Of Contraception Will Be Covered By Most New And Renewed Health Plans Without A Co-Pay Or Deductible. “Today the department is announcing that the final rule on preventive health services will ensure that women with health insurance coverage will have access to the full range of the Institute of Medicine’s recommended preventive services, including all FDA -approved forms of contraception.  Women will not have to forego these services because of expensive co-pays or deductibles, or because an insurance plan doesn’t include contraceptive services. This rule is consistent with the laws in a majority of states which already require contraception coverage in health plans, and includes the exemption in the interim final rule allowing certain religious organizations not to provide contraception coverage. Beginning August 1, 2012, most new and renewed health plans will be required to cover these services without cost sharing for women across the country.” [Department of Health and Human Services, 1/20/12]

AN ESTIMATED 47 MILLION WOMEN WILL GAIN ACCESS TO AFFORDABLE PREVENTIVE SERVICES, INCLUDING CONTRACEPTION, THANKS TO THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT

The Department Of Health And Human Services Estimates That Thanks To The Affordable Care Act, 47 Million Women Will Receive Access To Contraception And Seven Other Preventive Services Without A Co-Pay Or Deductible. According to a Department of Health and Human Services report: “Based on the most recent data from the Census Bureau, we estimate that under the Affordable Care Act, approximately 47 million women will have guaranteed access to these additional preventive services without cost-sharing for policies renewing on or after August 1, 2012.[4] These services include well-woman visits, screening for gestational diabetes, HPV DNA testing, domestic violence screening and counseling, HIV screening and counseling for sexually transmitted infections, breastfeeding supplies, contraceptive methods and family planning counseling.” [Department of Health and Human Services, 7/31/12]

• According To A 2010 Survey, 55 Percent Of Women Ages 18 To 34 Have Struggled With The Cost Of Prescription Birth Control. “The survey, conducted by Hart Research Associates and commissioned by Planned Parenthood Action Fund, found overwhelming and widespread public support for national policies that would provide prescription birth control approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) at no cost to all women with health insurance. … 55 percent of women 18–34 have struggled with the cost of prescription birth control.” [Planned Parenthood, 10/12/10]

THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION’S DECISION DOES NOT REQUIRE RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS TO PAY FOR, PRESCRIBE, OR PROVIDE CONTRACEPTIVES

The Obama Administration’s Health Care Guidelines On Contraception Exempts Churches And Houses Of Worship From Covering Contraception, And Will Require Insurers To Cover Contraception If A Religiously-Affiliated Organization Objects To Providing Coverage. “Today, the Obama Administration will publish final rules in the Federal Register that: Exempts churches, other houses of worship, and similar organizations from covering contraception on the basis of their religious objections. Establishes a one-year transition period for religious organizations while this policy is being implemented. The President will also announce that his Administration will propose and finalize a new regulation during this transition year to address the religious objections of the non-exempted non-profit religious organizations. The new regulation will require insurance companies to cover contraception if the religious organization chooses not to. Under the policy: Religious organizations will not have to provide contraceptive coverage or refer their employees to organizations that provide contraception. Religious organizations will not be required to subsidize the cost of contraception. Contraception coverage will be offered to women by their employers’ insurance companies directly, with no role for religious employers who oppose contraception.” [White House Fact Sheet, 2/10/12]

ROMNEY SUPPORTS THE BLUNT AMENDMENT WHICH WOULD ALLOW ANY EMPLOYER TO OPT OUT OF PROVIDING CONTRACEPTIVE COVERAGE – PUTTING AT RISK THE NEARLY 79 MILLION WOMEN WHO RELY ON THEIR EMPLOYER FOR HEALTH CARE

Romney Endorsed The Blunt Amendment Which Would Allow Employers To “Have Free Rein To Pick And Choose Your Medical Care As He Or She Saw Fit--So If The Boss Believed That Birth Control Were An Affront To God And Nature, Well, Too Bad For You.”  “And yet, just weeks after Obama announced the compromise, Senator Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) proposed legislation that would allow any employer or insurance company to decline to cover any medical care for any moral or religious reason. Under the law, your boss would have free rein to pick and choose your medical care as he or she saw fit--so if the boss believed that birth control were an affront to God and nature, well, too bad for you; you'd have to shell out the full monthly cost for your pill pack. The Blunt Amendment (which Romney endorsed) was blocked in the Senate with an extremely narrow margin--51 to 48--with Maine's Olympia Snowe (who announced around the same time that she would not be seeking reelection) the only Republican voting against it.” [Gretchen Voss, Women’s Health, September 2012]

Nearly 79 Million Women Received Health Care Coverage Through Their Employer.  According to the most recent census data, 78.8 million women under the age of 65 received health insurance coverage from their employer. [U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplement, 2011

RYAN SUPPORTS A SIMILAR BILL IN THE HOUSE

Ryan On The HHS Contraception Mandate: Romney-Ryan Administration “Will Void This Right Away.” Q: “As a Roman Catholic priest and -- Catholics in particular and religious people in general are worried about the erosion of religious liberty in this country. What can we expect from a Romney-Ryan ticket?” REP. RYAN: “Look, I didn't set it -- as you probably know, I'm a Catholic as well. And -- (inaudible, applause) -- when I read this ruling, I was horrified. President Obama, through his imposition of ‘Obamacare,’ through this rule from the Department of Health and Human Services, is requiring Catholic churches, charities, hospitals to violate their own conscience, their own tenets. This is the First Amendment to the Constitution -- religious liberty, freedom of conscience. This is the First Amendment to our Constitution. I will tell you this. This will not stand in a Mitt Romney administration. Mitt Romney will respect religious liberty, and we will void this right away. We should not have to sue our own government to protect our religious freedoms. That's what our church is doing right now. We will not do this.” [Ryan Remarks in Cincinnati, Ohio, 9/25/12] 

 

 

Questioned on Syria, Congressman Ryan proved again that he simply cannot articulate what Mitt Romney would do as president. Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan have failed to articulate anything they would do differently than the Obama administration. If Romney and Ryan want to arm the Syrian opposition directly, they should say that and be clear with the American people.  Romney and Ryan’s bluster aside, President Obama has been clear that Bashar al-Assad has lost all legitimacy and must go. The Obama Administration is working with our partners in the region to end the violence, strengthen the opposition, and support the legitimate aspirations of the Syrian people.

ROMNEY HAS FAILED TO OUTLINE A COHERENT STRATEGY FOR SYRIA

Boston Globe Headline: “Romney’s Stance On Syria A Work In Progress.” [Boston Globe, 6/19/12]

Boston Globe: “Last November, Mitt Romney Rejected Calls For The United States To Back A No-Flyzone And Havens To Help Rebels In Syria… He Now Says Syrians Are Facing A ‘Military Onslaught’ From Their Government, Calls On The United States To Facilitate Arming The Rebels, And Blasts What He Calls President Obama’s Failure To Act.”  [Boston Globe, 6/19/12]

Associated Press: Romney’s “Vague Prescriptions” For What He Would Do Differently In Syria Have Opened Him To Criticism From The Obama Campaign That He Is Weighing In From The Sidelines With “Nothing But Tough Talk.” “Romney has seized on the crackdown in Syria as an opportunity to dent Obama's foreign policy credentials, painting him as weak and indecisive in the face of more than a year of violence. But Romney's vague prescriptions for what he would do differently have opened him to criticism from the Obama campaign that he is weighing in from the sidelines with ‘nothing but tough talk’ while the president does the real work of managing the crisis.” [Associated Press, 5/31/12]

American Enterprise Institute Analyst Michael Rubin: “Romney’s [Syria] Policy Is Simply Probably Going To Be To Do The Opposite Of Whatever Obama Is Doing. This Election Isn’t About Foreign Policy, And Romney Is Going To Be A Foreign-Policy Opportunist — Not Leading, But Sniping From Behind.” [Hill, 5/30/12]

On A Romney Campaign Conference Call, Surrogates Offered “Few Specifics” As To What Romney Would Do Differently From President Obama In Syria. “While Biden spoke of an overarching foreign policy philosophy, Romney’s surrogates during a Thursday conference call before the vice president’s speech tended to focus on a few issues, albeit with few specifics. Without detailing a specific new plan for U.S. engagement in Syria, Romney’s campaign surrogates blasted the administration’s involvement there and accused Obama of deferring to the Russians. … But when faced with questions about what specifically Romney would do differently in Syria, the surrogates offered few specifics.” [Politico, 4/26/12]

PRESIDENT OBAMA HAS CALLED FOR THE ASSAD TO STEP ASIDE, HAS MOVED TO ISOLATE THE REGIME, AND IS SUPPORTING THE LEGITIMATE ASPIRATIONS OF THE SYRIAN PEOPLE

President Obama Strongly Condemned The Syrian Regime’s Assault And Called On President Assad To Step Aside. “I strongly condemn the Syrian government’s unspeakable assault against the people of Homs and I offer my deepest sympathy to those who have lost loved ones.  Assad must halt his campaign of killing and crimes against his own people now.  He must step aside and allow a democratic transition to proceed immediately… The United States and our international partners support the Syrian people in achieving their aspirations and will continue to assist the Syrian people toward that goal.” [Statement by the President on Syria, 2/4/12]

The Obama Administration’s Sanctions On Syria Have Undermined The Syrian Regime And Are Depleting Its Treasury. “At the same time, Mr. Tabler [Fellow at the Washington Institute For Near East Policy] said, Mr. Assad’s control has been undermined by American and other sanctions, and the Syrian treasury is dwindling. Given the sanctions on Iran, which have handed Iranians their own economic crisis, the leaders in Tehran are unlikely to provide significant financial aid to Mr. Assad.” [New York Times, 1/31/12]

The Obama Administration Has Been Involved In The “Friends Of Syria” Group To Bolster The Syrian Opposition. “Secretary of State Hillary Clinton chaired a meeting Friday of foreign ministers backing the Syrian opposition… She spoke at a meeting of foreign ministers from countries that are part of the so-called ‘Friends of Syria’ group, which met with nine Syrian opposition leaders. Some of the members help arm Syrian rebels. Others, such as the United States, are restricting their aid to non-lethal assistance.” [VOA, 9/28/12]

The Obama Administration Has Provided Almost $45 Million In Non-Lethal Aid And Over $130 Million In Humanitarian Assistance To Support The Syrian Opposition. “Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton is pledging millions more dollars in American assistance to the Syrian opposition as the U.S. and its allies explore new ways to help those seeking to oust President Bashar Assad. Clinton announced Friday that the Obama administration would provide the political opposition with an additional $15 million on non-lethal aid as well as $30 million in humanitarian support. The US has provided more than $130 million in humanitarian aid and almost $45 million in non-lethal aid to the rebels.” [AP, 9/28/12]

The Obama Administration Worked With Our Partners And Allies To Forcefully Condemn Syria President Assad Through The United Nations And Call For His Resignation. “In a powerful rebuke to Syria’s government, the United Nations General Assembly voted overwhelmingly on Thursday to approve a resolution that condemned President Bashar al-Assad’s unbridled crackdown on an 11-month-old uprising and called for his resignation under an Arab League peace proposal to resolve the conflict…’Today, the U.N. General Assembly sent a clear message to the people of Syria: The world is with you,’ the United States ambassador to the United Nations, Susan E. Rice, said in a statement. ‘Bashar al-Assad has never been more isolated.’” [New York Times, 2/16/12]

 

Paul Ryan couldn’t seem to articulate a coherent vision for the war in Afghanistan tonight.

So we’ll tell you the truth: the Romney-Ryan ticket has no plan to end the war in Afghanistan and bring our troops home. In fact, Romney said announcing a withdrawal date from Afghanistan was President Obama’s “biggest mistake” there.

ROMNEY LACKS PLANS ON AFGHANISTAN

Fox News: “The [Romney] Campaign Does Not Go Into Great Detail About Its Plan For U.S. Military In Afghanistan If Romney Is Elected.” “The campaign, though, does not go into great detail about its plan for U.S. military in Afghanistan if Romney is elected. The statement says Romney would ‘review our transition to the Afghan military by holding discussions’ with military leaders and would ‘order a full interagency assessment of our military and assistance presence in Afghanistan’ to determine how many troops are needed.” [Fox News, 9/3/12]

Romney Said Announcing Plans To Withdrawal From Afghanistan Was The President’s “Biggest Mistake.” Romney: “I think the biggest mistakes he’s made in Afghanistan were one, announcing the specific date we would withdraw.” [WXYT (Detroit, MI), 2/28/12]

Talking Points Memo: “The Romney Campaign Has Been Mostly Uninterested In Discussing Specifics On Afghanistan.”  [Talking Points Memo, 7/24/12]

Real Clear Politics: “Romney’s Opponents In The GOP Primary Regularly Complained To Reporters That The Front-Runner Had No Discernible Policy To Deal With Afghanistan.”  [Real Clear Politics, 4/17/12]

Associated Press: “Romney Has Criticized Obama’s Withdrawal Plan In Afghanistan, But Offered Few Details About How He Would Change It.” [Associated Press, 8/15/12]

ROMNEY’S SUPPORTERS CAN’T EXPLAIN ROMNEY’S PLANS FOR AFGHANISTAN

When Asked If He Supports Romney’s Plans For Afghanistan, Sen. Lindsey Graham Asked “What Is It?” “But even Republican lawmakers have called on Romney to be more open about his plans for Afghanistan. When asked by Foreign Policy whether he supported Romney's plans for Afghanistan South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham, a member of the Armed Services Committee, responded ‘What is it?’” [BuzzFeed, 7/24/12]

Huffington Post: “A Senior Adviser To Mitt Romney Declined To Provide More Specific Details On The Presumptive GOP Nominee’s Plan For Afghanistan On Thursday, Saying It Was A Distraction From What ‘Real Americans Want To Talk About.’” [Huffington Post, 7/19/12]

• Huffington Post: “Top Senators Are Equally Flummoxed. None Of Them Who Talked To [Josh] Rogin Were Able To Explain What Romney’s [Afghanistan] Policy Was.” [Huffington Post, 7/19/12]

ROMNEY AVOIDS COMMITTING TO A POLICY IN AFGHANISTAN BY SUGGESTING HE WOULD DEFER TO GUIDANCE FROM THE COMMANDERS ON THE GROUND

Romney: “Withdrawal Of U.S. Forces From Afghanistan Under A Romney Administration Will Be Based On Conditions On The Ground As Assessed By Our Military Commanders.” [Issues: Afghanistan & Pakistan, Romney For President, accessed 9/10/12]

Romney On Withdrawal From Afghanistan: “I Will Evaluate Conditions On The Ground And Weigh The Best Advice Of Our Military Commanders.” “But the route to war – and to potential attacks here at home – is a politically timed retreat that abandons the Afghan people to the same extremists who ravaged their country and used it to launch the attacks of 9/11.  I will evaluate conditions on the ground and weigh the best advice of our military commanders. And I will affirm that my duty is not to my political prospects, but to the security of the nation.” [Romney Foreign Policy Address, Lexington VA, 10/8/12]

Romney Criticism Of The Drawdown Of The Iraq And Afghanistan Wars “Hasn’t Extended Far Beyond Saying He Would Have Differed By Heeding The Wishes Of Commanders On The Ground.” “He’s offered boilerplate opposition to the president’s handling of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the popular uprisings in Libya and Syria. … Romney’s criticism of the drawdown of the wars hasn’t extended far beyond saying he would have differed by heeding the wishes of commanders on the ground. And even a number of Republicans acknowledge significant popular fatigue for the two wars, even within the GOP.” [First Read, NBC, 3/29/12]

Romney Would Leave Generals In Afghanistan To Guide The Pullout Schedule Rather Than The President. “Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and Texas Congressman Ron Paul are disagreeing on how quickly to withdraw U.S. troops from Afghanistan. Romney said at a Republican presidential debate Monday that generals in Afghanistan should guide the pullout schedule based to conditions on the ground. He said the troops should come home as soon as possible under those conditions. Paul said the president must tell generals what to do.” [Washington Post, 6/13/11]

 

Already in tonight’s debate – just past halfway through – Congressman Ryan has misled the American public on five major issues that matter:

Deception #1: Ryan said Romney’s 5 point plan would create jobs.

That’s false. Independent economists have said that Romney’s plans could slow the economic recovery and eliminate jobs, and that his tax plan doesn’t add up.  Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan have a plan:  to return to the policies that crashed the economy and devastated the middle class.

Deception #2: Ryan misrepresented the Obama administration’s Iran policy.

That’s false. It was President Obama who put in place “crippling sanctions” on Iran that are working to bring its economy to its knees and just this week, Mitt Romney admitted they are working. Romney and Ryan have struggled to articulate what they’d do differently regarding Iran – except blustering about recklessly taking us to war.

Deception #3: Ryan said Mitt Romney is a “Car Guy”

That’s false. Mitt Romney’s no “car guy” – when the American auto industry and the million jobs it supports were on the brink, he would have just “let Detroit go bankrupt.” And he didn’t just write it in an op-ed, he repeated it personally many times. President Obama bet on the American worker, saving over a million jobs and helping make all three Detroit automakers profitable for the first time in seven years.

Deception #4: Ryan hypocritically criticized the Obama administration on the Benghazi attack.

That’s not right. The Romney-Ryan plan could slash funding for diplomatic security. While Paul Ryan has been perfectly willing to politicize the terrorist attacks in Benghazi, he has failed to note that the Romney-Ryan budget would require deep cuts to the State Department budget – and could slash funding for diplomatic security, construction and maintenance by $300 million at U.S. embassies around the world. In fact, Congressman Ryan and House Republicans have pushed for deep cuts affecting diplomatic security for years.

Deception #5: Congressman Ryan claimed the Romney-Ryan Medicare voucher plan is bipartisan and rooted in the recommendations of a 1990s Clinton commission.

That’s false. Senator Ron Wyden voted against the Ryan budget and has condemned their Medicare plan. Romney and Ryan are just trying to hide that their plan for Medicare is to turn it into a voucher program, increasing costs for seniors by more than $6,000 a year.

And the Review Are Already Coming In – Just a Sample:

Blake Hounshell ‏@blakehounshell

Biden: "With all due respect, that's a bunch of malarkey." 10,000-watt smile. Dings Ryan for cutting embassy security.

Ron Fournier ‏@ron_fournier

Biden counters on Libya accurately and effectively: GOP cut spending on embassy security and Romney jumped gun in first hours of attack.

John Heilemann @jheil Really, Ryan is just talking total crap on the sanctions against Iran.#fact

Michael Cohen @speechboy71 Pretty much nothing that Ryan just said on Iran is true.

PolitiFact ‏@politifact
Romney has said Obama admin couldn't get 'crippling sanctions' against Iran. Mostly False http://ow.ly/epNKm  #debate

PolitiFact ‏@politifact

Claims that stimulus paid for windmills in China are overblown. Mostly False. http://ow.ly/epOzl  #debate

New York Times: “Fact Check: Marines and Embassies: Mr. Ryan misspoke in opening statement saying there should have been Marine guards at Benghazi.  Marine guards are only at U.S. embassies.” [NY Times, Fact Check, 10/11/12]

Anthony De Rosa ‏@AntDeRosa

Biden calls Ryan out on lying that every state's unemployment numbers are going up.

Congressman Ryan and Mitt Romney have zero credibility when it comes to Social Security. The truth is that President Obama has called for both sides to come to the table to strengthen Social Security as part of a balanced plan, while Romney has supported privatization. And as Martha Raddatz pointed out,  Congressman Ryan has supported privatization of the program in the past and was the architect of a plan that even the Bush administration called “irresponsible.”

PRESIDENT OBAMA OUTLINED SIX PRINCIPLES FOR SOCIAL SECURITY REFORM AND HAS CALLED FOR A BIPARTISAN SOLUTION TO STRENGTHEN SOCIAL SECURITY

President Obama Outlined Six Principles For Social Security Reform, Including Opposing Any Efforts To Privatize Or Weaken Social Security, To Slash Benefits For Future Generations, Or To Reduce Basic Benefits For Current Recipients.  “The President is committed to making sure that Social Security is solvent and viable for the American people, now and in the future. He is strongly opposed to privatizing Social Security and looks forward to working in a bipartisan way to strengthen Social Security for years to come. Guiding the Administration in these talks will be the President’s six principles for reform: any reform should strengthen Social Security for future generations and restore long-term solvency; the Administration will oppose any measures to privatize or weaken the Social Security system; while all measures to strengthen solvency should be on the table, the Administration will not accept an approach that slashes benefits for future generations; no current beneficiaries should see their basic benefits reduced; reform should strengthen retirement security for the most vulnerable, including low-income seniors; reform should maintain robust disability and survivors’ benefits.” [White House Fact Sheet, February 2012]

President Obama: We Need To “Find A Bipartisan Solution To Strengthen Social Security For Future Generations.” "To put us on solid ground, we should also find a bipartisan solution to strengthen Social Security for future generations. We must do it without putting at risk current retirees, the most vulnerable, or people with disabilities; without slashing benefits for future generations; and without subjecting Americans’ guaranteed retirement income to the whims of the stock market." [Remarks by the President at the State Of The Union, 01/25/11]

President Obama: We Have To Keep The Promise “To Safeguard Social Security For Our Seniors, People With Disabilities, And All Americans Today, Tomorrow, And Forever.” “We have an obligation to keep that promise; to safeguard Social Security for our seniors, people with disabilities, and all Americans -- today, tomorrow, and forever.” [Remarks by the President at a Weekly Address, 8/14/10]

ROMNEY AND RYAN SUPPORTED BUSH’S PLAN TO PRIVATIZE SOCIAL SECURITY

Romney Supported Bush’s Privatization Plan For Social Security Saying “That Works.”  Romney said, “[T]he president said let’s have private accounts and take that surplus money that’s being gathered now in Social Security and put that into private accounts. That works.”  [Fox News Debate, 10/21/07]

• Romney Praised Private Accounts For Social Security Recipients Calling Them “A Big Plus.” “Republican Mitt Romney yesterday praised the notion of personal accounts for Social Security recipients, a key aspect of the Social Security reform plan of President Bush that never made it out of Congress. Romney said it would be a good idea to use the Social Security trust fund to allow personal accounts, which could earn higher rates of return for beneficiaries. ‘Personal accounts would be a big plus,’ Romney said at the New Hampshire Institute of Art yesterday afternoon.” [Union Leader, 6/7/07]

Ryan Praised President Bush’s Call For Private Accounts In Social Security In 2005 State Of The Union. “I’m also glad the President talked about why it’s crucial to reform Social Security now so the program will be able to help our children have a more secure retirement, while at the same time honoring its promise to seniors and those close to retirement. He needed to communicate that this will not affect today’s seniors, and he needed to show how this will help younger workers build savings for their retirement.” [Rep. Paul Ryan press release, 2/2/05]

RYAN CREATED HIS OWN PLAN WHICH WENT SO FAR BUSH ADMINISTRATION OFFICIALS CALLED “IRRESPONSIBLE”

2005: Ryan Reintroduced Bill Mirroring His 2004 Social Security Privatization Plan. “Wisconsin’s First District Rep. Paul Ryan is reintroducing legislation today to put Social Security on solid footing for the future and ensure that the program will help future generations achieve a more secure retirement, as it has for past and present retirees. This bill - the Social Security Personal Savings Guarantee and Prosperity Act - closely resembles Social Security reform legislation that Ryan introduced last year. Sen. Sununu of New Hampshire is introducing an identical measure in the U.S. Senate today.” [Rep. Paul Ryan press release, 4/20/05]

• George W. Bush’s Director Of Strategic Initiatives Peter Wehner: “If We Borrow $1-2 Trillion To Cover Transition Costs For Personal Savings Accounts And Make Changes To Wage Indexing… Would Be Irresponsible. “If we duck our duty, it can have serious short-term economic consequences. Here's why. If we borrow $1-2 trillion to cover transition costs for personal savings accounts and make no changes to wage indexing, we will have borrowed trillions and will still confront more than $10 trillion in unfunded liabilities. This could easily cause an economic chain-reaction: the markets go south, interest rates go up, and the economy stalls out. To ignore the structural fiscal issues -- to wholly ignore the matter of the current system's benefit formula -- would be irresponsible.” [Peter Wehner, White House Social Security Memo, 1/5/05]

RYAN PROPOSED TWO BUDGET PLANS THAT INCLUDED PRIVATIZATION OF SOCIAL SECURITY ROADMAP 2.0 CREATED PRIVATE ACCOUNTS FOR THOSE UNDER AGE 55, WITH EXISTING SYSTEM FOR THOSE 55 AND OLDER

Ryan’s “Roadmap For America’s Future” Included Private Accounts For Social Security. “To meet this challenge and secure our fiscal future, I have introduced a comprehensive legislative plan called ‘A Roadmap for America's Future.’ … Social Security. Social Security will be preserved for current retirees and those 55 and older. My plan starts by ending the raid on the Social Security Trust Fund. Workers under 55 will have the voluntary option of investing over one-third of their current Social Security taxes into personal retirement accounts.” [Ryan op-ed, St. Paul Pioneer Press, 9/2/08]

Ryan Doubled Down On Social Security Private Accounts After 2008 Market Collapse. “Ryan says he hasn’t lost his zeal for the free-market system and, despite the losses in the stock market, continues to back a plan that would allow workers to invest part of their Social Security funds in private accounts. Under Ryan’s proposal, the government would guarantee those workers a certain return even if their investments lost value, meaning the government would have to make up the cost. ‘Over a person’s working period, the market will outperform Social Security,’ he said, adding that it will take some time for the markets to respond to the rescue provisions now being put in place.” [Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 10/9/08]

 

FACT CHECK: Mitt Romney’s No “Car Guy”

Mitt Romney’s no “car guy” – when the American auto industry and the million jobs it supports were on the brink, he would have just “let Detroit go bankrupt.” And he didn’t just write it in an op-ed, he repeated it personally many times. President Obama bet on the American worker, saving over a million jobs and helping make all three Detroit automakers profitable for the first time in seven years.

ROMNEY WANTED TO “LET DETROIT GO BANKRUPT”

ROMNEY OP-ED HEADLINE: “Let Detroit Go Bankrupt” [Romney Op-Ed, New York Times, 11/19/08]

Romney Said Of The Auto Bailout: “That’s Exactly What I Said. The Headline You Read Which Said ‘Let Detroit Go Bankrupt’ Points Out That Those Companies Needed To Go Through Bankruptcy.” [Early Show, CBS News, 6/3/11]

ROMNEY’S ATTEMPT TO CLAIM CREDIT FOR THE AUTO RESCUE WAS DEEMED “LAUGHABLE” - “OBVIOUSLY A LIE, AND A PRETTY BIG ONE”

Pittsburgh Post-Gazette Editorial: Romney Claiming Credit For The Auto Industry Rebound Was “Laughable.” “When the history of the 2012 presidential race is written, the absurdity of presumptive GOP nominee Mitt Romney claiming credit for the rebound of the auto industry will warrant an entry, most likely under the heading ‘Laughable.’” [Editorial, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, 5/12/12]

Detroit Free Press’ Stephen Henderson: Romney’s Claim That He Deserved Credit For Auto Industry’s Comeback Was “Obviously A Lie, And A Pretty Big One.” “Instead, we’ve heard Romney flim and flam about what he said about the auto industry in 2008. And now, incredulously, he wants to claim credit for the resurgence of General Motors and Chrysler, saying it was his idea to push them through bankruptcy. That’s obviously a lie, and a pretty big one.” [Stephen Henderson, Detroit Free Press, 5/8/12]

Detroit Free Press Editorial Headline: “How Mitt Romney Saved Detroit, If Only In His Dreams” [Editorial, Detroit Free Press, 5/9/12]
 
Toledo Blade Editorial: Romney “Can't Have It Both Ways – ‘Drop Dead, Detroit’ In 2008 And ‘I Saved You’ In 2012.” [Editorial, Toledo Blade, 5/12/12]

Toledo Blade Editorial: Romney Taking Credit For The Auto Industry Rebound Is Absurd. “When the history of the 2012 presidential campaign is written, the absurdity of presumptive GOP nominee Mitt Romney taking credit for the rebound of the U.S. auto industry will warrant an entry all its own.” [Editorial, Toledo Blade, 5/12/12]

THE PRIVATE BANKRUPTCY ROMNEY ADVOCATED FOR WAS IMPOSSIBLE DURING THE FINANCIAL CRISIS

AutoNation CEO Mike Jackson: It Is “Pure Fantasy” To Suggest That Private Financing Was Available For Chrysler And GM.  LL: “What do you think of Mitt’s assertion that private financing ‘DIP’ was available in fall of ’08 into ’09?” MJ: “That is pure fantasy and you have to ask, what he was doing in ’08 and ’09 that he did not see this.” [CNBC, 2/16/12]

AutoNation Inc. CEO And Romney Supporter, Mike Jackson Called Romney’s Detroit News Op-Ed Defending His Opposition To The Auto Industry Rescue, “Truly Reckless, Detached From Reality, And Dishonest.” Bloomberg wrote of Romney’s 2/14/12 op-ed about the auto industry rescue: “The piece drew criticism from Mike Jackson, chief executive officer of AutoNation Inc. (AN), the largest auto-dealer group in the U.S., who called it ‘truly reckless, detached from reality, and dishonest,’ as well as ‘very bad politics, especially in Michigan.’ Jackson, who has been a Romney advocate, said in an e-mail to Bloomberg News the assertion that private financing should have been used to fund GM and Chrysler bankruptcies was ‘fantasy,’ adding, ‘Everyone knows we were in the midst of the greatest financial meltdown since the 1930s.’” [Bloomberg, 2/16/12]

Former GM Vice Chairman Bob Lutz Saw Romney Opposition To Federal Government’s Auto Industry Rescue As “A Political Ploy To The Right” And That Romney Was “Playing The Same Song As Rush Limbaugh And Glenn Beck.” “Some Republicans have criticized Mr. Romney’s insistence that federal intervention was wrongheaded as an example of what they see as his willingness to say anything to win over skeptical conservatives. ‘He’s playing the same song as Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck,’ said Bob Lutz, a former vice chairman for General Motors who said he was still so upset with Mr. Romney that he had cast his absentee ballot in Michigan for Rick Santorum. ‘I think all of us in the auto industry who knew what the situation was were profoundly disappointed and, I would say, angry,’ Mr. Lutz said. ‘We all saw it for what it was, which was a political ploy to the right.’” [New York Times, 2/19/12]

Detroit Free Press Fact Check: While Romney Argued Against Using Taxpayer Money In The Auto Rescue, “Private Financing Was All But Nonexistent In The Frozen Credit Markets Of Late 2008 And Early 2009.” “Romney consistently has argued against taxpayer money being used to prop up the firms outside of bankruptcy. He seems to suggest that there could have been some funding after the fact to keep them up and operating until private financing kicked in. But people who were part of the rescue argue that this wouldn't have worked. Private financing was all but nonexistent in the frozen credit markets of late 2008 and early 2009. And both the Republican administration of President George W. Bush and the Democratic administration of President Barack Obama found it necessary -- if distasteful -- to put up billions of dollars to keep the companies open while they sorted out what should be done longer term (i.e., the ‘managed’ bankruptcy Romney suggested), though that took time. To withhold money then, supporters of the rescue have said, would have forced the companies into liquidation. Romney said Thursday he wouldn't have allowed that to happen.” [Fact Check, Detroit Free Press, 2/17/12]

THE AUTO RESCUE SAVED OVER A MILLION JOBS, THE AUTO INDUSTRY HAS CREATED NEARLY A QUARTER OF A MILLION JOBS SINCE, AND THE BIG THREE ARE ALL PROFITABLE FOR THE FIRST TIME IN YEARS

Center For Automotive Research: The Auto Industry Rescue Saved Over 1.1 Million Jobs In 2009. According to a report on the  difference between orderly bankruptcy proceedings assisted by government-provided debtor-in-possession financing versus an uncontrolled bankruptcy for American automakers, the Center for Automotive Research estimates that emergency loans to American automakers saved 1.14 million jobs in 2009. [Center for Automotive Research Report, 11/7/10]

Since Chrysler And GM Retooled In June 2009, The American Auto Industry Has Added Over 246,000 Jobs.  According to Bureau of Labor Statistics Current Employment Statistics survey data, motor vehicle and parts manufacturing and motor vehicle and parts retail trade sectors employed 2,252,100 Americans in June 2009. In September 2012, these sectors employed 2,498,400 Americans – an increase of 246,300 jobs. [Bureau Of Labor Statistics Current Employment Statistics Survey Database, Accessed 10/5/12]

2011 Marked The First Time In Seven Years That All The Big Three Automakers Were Profitable. “General Motors reported a record annual profit Thursday, just two years after the nation's largest automaker emerged from bankruptcy with the help of a federal bailout. With rivals Ford Motor (F, Fortune 500) and Chrysler Group having already reported profits for last year, 2011 marked the first time since 2004 that all three major U.S. automakers were profitable at the same time.” [CNN Money, 2/16/12]

 

Tonight, Congressman Ryan misrepresented the Obama administration’s Iran policy. It was President Obama who put in place “crippling sanctions” on Iran that are working to bring its economy to its knees and just this week, Mitt Romney admitted they are working. Romney and Ryan have struggled to articulate what they’d do differently regarding Iran – except blustering about recklessly taking us to war.

ROMNEY: PRESIDENT OBAMA’S “CRIPPLING SANCTIONS” ON IRAN ARE WORKING

Romney: “There's No Daylight Between The United States And Israel” And “The Crippling Sanctions Do Have An Impact. BLITZER: “Is there any daylight between you and the prime minister?” ROMNEY: “There's no daylight between the United States and Israel. We have coincidental interests. We share values, and we're both absolutely committed to preventing Iran from having a nuclear weapon… But I can tell you this, that the crippling sanctions do have an impact. They're having an impact on Iran's economy right now. They will have an impact on the public there in Iran. And there's great hope and real prospects for dissuading Iran from taking a path that leads into a nuclear setting.” [CNN, Situation Room, 10/9/12]

PRESIDENT OBAMA HAS MADE IT CLEAR HE WILL NOT ALLOW A NUCLEAR IRAN AND HAS INCREASED PRESSURE ON THE REGIME

President Obama Has Made It Clear That He Does Not Have A “Policy Of Containment,” But A “Policy To Prevent Iran From Obtaining A Nuclear Weapon” And Will “Take No Options Off The Table.” “I have said that when it comes to preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, I will take no options off the table, and I mean what I say. That includes all elements of American power:  A political effort aimed at isolating Iran; a diplomatic effort to sustain our coalition and ensure that the Iranian program is monitored; an economic effort that imposes crippling sanctions; and, yes, a military effort to be prepared for any contingency. Iran’s leaders should understand that I do not have a policy of containment; I have a policy to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. ” [Remarks by the President at the AIPAC Policy Conference, 04/04/12]

National Journal Fact Check: Contrary To Romney’s Claims, The “Obama Administration Has Already Put In Place The Toughest Sanctions Ever Imposed On The Iranian Government.”  “Mitt Romney claimed Wednesday night in the CNN debate that President Obama did not install stringent sanctions against Iran in its effort to derail its nuclear program, but top U.S. intelligence and defense officials disagree. Obama ‘should have placed crippling sanctions against Iran. He did not,’ Romney said. The Obama administration has already put in place the toughest sanctions ever imposed on the Iranian government, including new measures targeting, for the first time, Iran’s entire financial system. Obama on New Year's Eve also signed into law a raft of tough new sanctions that would penalize any foreign financial institution that does business with the Central Bank of Iran. As part of broader U.S.-led efforts to exert pressure on Iran, the European Union has agreed to ban new contracts to buy, transport or import Iranian crude oil.” [National Journal, 2/22/12]

Foreign Policy’s David Rothkopf: The Effectiveness Of President Obama’s Sanctions Regime Displayed A Shared Purpose That Would Have Previously Seemed “Far-Fetched.” “In recent days it has become clear that the sanctions against Iran are working vastly better than anyone should have expected. The Europeans are now tightening them further with a planned oil embargo against the Iranians -- a display of unity and shared purpose within the Atlantic Alliance that might at one time have seemed as far-fetched as the idea that sanctions could work in the first place.” [David Rothkopf, Foreign Policy, 1/5/12]

The Iranian Regime Has Been Forced To Admit The Impact Of Sanctions And Is Having Trouble Selling Oil. “After years of defiance and insistence that sanctions were barely being felt at home, Iranians are acknowledging the latest round with growing alarm. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Tuesday that they were ‘the strongest yet.’ International oil experts say Iranian exports have already been cut by at least a quarter since the beginning of the year, costing Iran roughly $10 billion so far in forgone revenues. Many experts say the pain is only beginning, since oil prices have been falling and Iran’s sales should drop even more with the European embargo that went into effect on Sunday.” [New York Times, 7/4/12]

The Iranian Rial Has Lost 80% Of Its Value Since The End Of 2011 Under The Pressure Of US And International Sanctions. “The [Iranian] currency has reportedly lost 80% of its value since the end of 2011. The fall suggests economic sanctions imposed over its disputed nuclear programme are hitting economic activity ever harder… Iran is all but frozen out of the global banking system as a result of largely US-led sanctions designed to discourage what it says is Iran's attempts to build a nuclear weapon.” [BBC, 10/1/12]

 

 

While Paul Ryan has been perfectly willing to politicize the terrorist attacks in Benghazi, he has failed to note that the Romney-Ryan budget would require deep cuts to the State Department budget – and could slash funding for diplomatic security, construction and maintenance by $300 million at U.S. embassies around the world. In fact, Congressman Ryan and House Republicans have pushed for deep cuts affecting diplomatic security for years.

THE ROMNEY-RYAN BUDGET COULD CUT DIPLOMATIC SECURITY FUNDING BY MORE THAN TWICE AS MUCH AS THE SEQUESTRATION RYAN VOTED FOR

Under Sequestration – Which Ryan And Many Other Republicans Voted For – Embassy Security, Construction And Maintenance And Protection Of Foreign Missions And Officials Would Face Cuts Totaling $131 Million While The Ryan Budget Would Cut Them By $303 Million Over The Next Two Years. “Under so-called sequestration, which Ryan and many other Republicans voted for, funding for diplomatic and consular programs would be cut by about $1 billion next year, according to a Sept. 14 analysis by the White House budget office. That includes a $129 million cut to the ‘Embassy Security, Construction, and Maintenance’ budget category and another $2 million cut to the ‘Protection of Foreign Missions and Officials’ category, for a total of $131 million. The figure is expected to be roughly the same for 2014, because the sequestration cuts remain at roughly the same level throughout the decade. Ryan, by contrast, phases in the cuts. His budget called for a 19 percent across-the-board cut to non-defense discretionary spending in 2014, according to Zients, much deeper than the 8.2 percent cut under sequestration. Assuming an across-the-board distribution of the cuts, his proposal would have slashed the first category by $298 million and the second by $5 million, for a total of $303 million – $172 million than the cut under sequestration.” [Hill, 10/7/12]

• The Ryan Budget Doesn’t Exempt Embassy Security From Cuts. “Back in March, Jeffrey Zients, the acting director of the Office of Management and Budget, said that ‘since the House refused to specify what would be cut, we consider the impacts if the cuts are distributed equally across the board.’ …But the Ryan budget doesn't exempt embassy security from cuts, either.” [Hill, 10/7/12]

 

RYAN AND HOUSE REPUBLICANS HAVE PUSHED FOR DEEP CUTS EFFECTING DIPLOMATIC SECURITY FOR YEARS

Washington Posts Dana Milbank: “Diplomatic Security Is Inadequate Partly Because Of Budget Cuts Forced By… Republicans In Congress.” “The purpose of the pre-election hearing, presumably, is to embarrass the administration for inadequate diplomatic security. But [Rep. Darrell] Issa seems unaware of the irony that diplomatic security is inadequate partly because of budget cuts forced by his fellow Republicans in Congress.” [Milbank, Washington Post, 10/9/12]

• The GOP-Controlled House Proposed Spending $216 Million Less For The State Department’s Worldwide Security Protection Program Requested By The Obama Administration For Fiscal 2013. “For fiscal 2013, the GOP-controlled House proposed spending $1.934 billion for the State Department’s Worldwide Security Protection program — well below the $2.15 billion requested by the Obama administration.” [Milbank, Washington Post, 10/9/12]
• House Republicans Cut The Obama Administration’s Request For Embassy Security By Nearly $460 Million In Fiscal Years 2011 And 2012. “House Republicans cut the administration’s request for embassy security funding by $128 million in fiscal 2011 and $331 million in fiscal 2012. (Negotiations with the Democrat-controlled Senate restored about $88 million of the administration’s request.)”  [Milbank, Washington Post, 10/9/12]

 

Washington Posts Dana Milbank: “[Rep. Paul] Ryan, [Rep. Darrell] Issa And Other House Republicans Voted For An Amendment In 2009 To Cut $1.2 Billion From State Operations, Including Funds For 300 More Diplomatic Security Positions.”  [Milbank, Washington Post, 10/9/12]

• Ryan, In 2009, Was One Of 156 House Members Who Voted For A Failed Amendment To “Reduce The Diplomatic And Consular Programs By $1.2 Billion.” Paul Ryan, on July 9, 2009, voted for an amendment H.AMDT.307 to H.R. 3081, an amendment that “would reduce the Diplomatic and Consular Programs by $1.2 billion and would reduce the Operating Expenses for United States Agency for International Development (USAID) by $330 million and the Global Health program by $670 million. The cuts to these three accounts would reduce the overall bill by $2.2 billion. The amendment was opposed in the House by a vote 271 to 156.” [H.R. 3081, Vote 517, 7/9/09 and Rep. Steven E. Buyer, R-Ind., Release, 7/11/09]
• Ryan Against The Overall State And Foreign Operations Appropriations. Ryan, on July 9, voted against the overall State and Foreign Operations Appropriations bill, H.R. 3081. The spending measure passed the House by 318 to 106. [H.R. 3081, Vote 517, 7/9/09]

Washington Posts Dana Milbank: “Last Year, Secretary Of State Hillary Clinton Warned That Republicans’ Proposed Cuts To Her Department Would Be ‘Detrimental To America’s National Security’ — A Charge [House] Republicans Rejected.” [Milbank, Washington Post, 10/9/12]

While Mitt Romney’s rhetoric may have sounded polished tonight, it just wasn’t true. On issue after issue, Romney avoided giving specifics and, in several instances, told flat-out falsehoods.

It’s no surprise why – the more Americans learn about Mitt Romney’s plans to raise taxes on the middle class to pay for tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires, to eliminate Wall Street reforms that protect middle class families from the abuses that caused the recession, and to repeal Obamacare with no plans to help individuals with pre-existing conditions, the less likely they are to support him.

Facts matter and Mitt Romney is unwilling to give them to the American people.

What People Are Saying:

CNN’s David Gergen: “Romney was just sort of flat out lying.”

Los Angeles Times: “The Romney campaign has refused to say which loopholes it would close, and Romney did not clear up the question Wednesday.”

Bloomberg News: "Romney's tax plan can't add up." 

CNBC Fact Check: “Romney again tonight did not say specifically how he would pay for his proposed across the board tax cut.”  

The Washington Post: "Mitt Romney needs to spend a little more time with his budget reports." 

Los Angeles Times: "Fact check: Romney repeats erroneous claims on healthcare":

Chicago Sun-Times: “If, however, you score Wednesday’s debate on substance — accurate facts and honest arithmetic — Obama more than held his own.”

Fact Check‏@factcheckdotorg Romney says he will pay for $5T tax cut without raising deficit or raising taxes on middle class. Experts say that's not possible....

Rachel Weiner ‏@rachelweinerwp  Fact Checker: Romney says “six other studies” have found his plan can be revenue neutral, but he’s wrong about that. http://wapo.st/UGjQeh

Matt Yglesias ‏@mattyglesias Romney's tax plan is basically 2+2=5.

Los Angeles Times ‏@latimes  Fact check: Romney's tax claims challenged by nonpartisan report: http://lat.ms/RBZyUT (via @LisaMascaroinDC)

PolitiFact ‏@politifact We looked at whether five studies back up Romney's tax plan. Mostly False. Our review: http://ow.ly/ecKPd  #debate

PolitiFact @politifact  Reputable study found Romney’s tax plan can't reduce overall rates AND raise same revenues. Our check: http://ow.ly/ecpR4  #debate

PolitiFact @politifact  Is Romney plan for future Medicare a voucher system? Mostly True. http://ow.ly/ecMuu  #debate

Fact Check‏@factcheckdotorg Romney said Obama “cut" Medicare by $716B but cuts in the future growth of spending prolong life of Medicare. http://ow.ly/ecMJ8

PolitiFact @politifact  From the archives: Rick Santorum said Romney adviser admits Romneycare was blueprint for Obamacare. Mostly True. http://ow.ly/ecNPm

PolitiFact ‏@politifact Obamacare is a government takeover of health care? That was the 2010 Lie of the Year. http://ow.ly/ecO9V  #debate

Michael Crowley ‏@CrowleyTIME Romney closes with pretty dishonest warning about defense cuts

Jonathan Cohn ‏@CitizenCohn Sigh. Romney not telling the truth here. Pre-existing conditions NOT covered under his plan http://www.tnr.com/blog/plank/107049/romney-pre-existing-condition-obamacare-repeal-gregory-meet-the-press …

Ezra Klein ‏@ezraklein Around 89 million Americans would likely be left out of Romney's "preexisting conditions plan," such as it is. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/09/10/who-would-be-left-out-of-romneys-preexisting-conditions-plan-about-89-million-americans/ …

Chicago Sun-Times Editorial: Editorial: Romney wins on style, Obama on facts

Los Angeles Times: Fact Check: Romney's tax claims challenged by non-partisan report

Bloomberg: Romney Tax Plan Needs Growth to Add Up: Reality Check

Washington Post:  Romney off on deficits

Los Angeles Times: Fact check: Romney repeats erroneous claims on healthcare

Talking Points Memo: Romney Backs Away From Own Tax Plan

 

Mitt Romney falsely claimed that the President walked away from the Simpson-Bowles commission’s recommendations. But that’s not true. The President has proposed a balanced approach to deficit reduction that takes a framework consistent with Simpson-Bowles – asking for both spending cuts and additional revenues from the wealthiest and closing corporate loopholes. Romney has refused to ask for a penny more from millionaires and billionaires and instead could explode our deficit with massive new tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans and increased defense spending, with no way to pay for it. In fact, Romney’s running mate was on the commission and voted against its recommendations.

PRESIDENT OBAMA HAS OUTLINED DEFICIT REDUCTION MEASURES SIMILAR TO THOSE THE COMMISSION PROPOSED, WITH A BALANCED COMBINATION OF SPENDING CUTS AND NEW REVENUES

PolitiFact: President Obama Has “Outlined Deficit Reduction Measures Similar To Those Proposed By The Commission.” “PolitiFact New Jersey investigated whether Obama failed to ‘stand up for the bipartisan debt solutions of the Simpson-Bowles Commission,’ and found that Christie is not entirely right. The president did not fully embrace the commission’s recommendations at the outset, but Obama later outlined deficit reduction measures similar to those proposed by the commission. Even the commission’s co-chairs -- former White House chief of staff Erskine Bowles under President Bill Clinton, and former Republican U.S. Sen. Alan Simpson -- have said so. ‘We are encouraged that the President has embraced a balanced, comprehensive approach to deficit reduction similar to that outlined in the Fiscal Commission report,’ Bowles and Simpson said in an April 13 press release.” [PolitiFact, 9/29/2011]

• PolitiFact Rated The Claim “Barack Obama Failed To Stand Up For Proposed Solutions Of [The Simpson-Bowles] Deficit Reduction Commission” Mostly False. [PolitiFact, 9/29/11]

Fiscal Commission Co-Chair Erskine Bowles: “I'm Confident That [President Obama] Supports Deficit Reduction That Is Generally In Line With The Recommendations Of The Bipartisan Debt Commission.” “After a long meeting with Mr. Obama earlier this month, I'm confident that he supports deficit reduction that is generally in line with the recommendations of the bipartisan debt commission. That does not mean that he supports every single thing we recommended, nor do I or any other commissioner who voted yes on the report we issued. But it was apparent to me that the president does support the general framework of the ‘Simpson-Bowles Plan,’ and he is willing to do his part to put our fiscal house in order.” [Erskine Bowles Op-Ed, Wall Street Journal, 3/29/12]

Center On Budget And Policy Priorities: President Obama’s Budget Would Stabilize The Debt Over The Coming Decade Through “A Balanced Combination Of Spending Cuts And Revenue Increases.”  “If Congress enacted the Obama budget in full and its economic assumptions proved correct, the debt would stabilize over the coming decade although, as the White House acknowledges, policymakers would have to subsequently enact significant further deficit reduction to keep the debt stable in future decades. The budget either achieves or approaches this key fiscal target for the coming decade with several trillion dollars in deficit reduction, through a balanced combination of spending cuts and revenue increases.” [Center On Budget And Policy Priorities, 2/16/12]

ROMNEY’S PLAN HAS ALMOST NOTHING IN COMMON WITH SIMPSON-BOWLES

Tax Policy Center Headline: “The Bowles-Simpson and Romney Tax Plans Have Almost Nothing in Common” [Howard Gleckman, Tax Policy Center, 8/9/12]

Tax Policy Center’s Howard Gleckman: The Claim That Romney’s Tax Plan Is Similar To Bowles-Simpson Is “Absurd. These Two Proposals Could Hardly Be More Different.” [Howard Gleckman, Tax Policy Center, 8/9/12]

Politico Headline: “Erskine Bowles To Romney: You’re No Bowles Or Simpson.” [Politico, 8/10/12]

• Erskine Bowles: “I Will Be The First To Cheer If Romney Decides To Embrace Our Plan. Unfortunately, The Numbers Say Otherwise: His Reform Plan Leaves Too Many Tax Breaks In Place And, As A Result, Does Nothing To Reduce The Debt.” [Erskine Bowles Op-Ed, Washington Post, 8/9/12]

• Erskine Bowles: “The Romney Plan, By Sticking To Revenue-Neutrality And Leaving In Place Tax Breaks, Would Raise Taxes On The Middle Class And Do Nothing To Shrink The Deficit.” [Erskine Bowles Op-Ed, Washington Post, 8/9/12]

RYAN VOTED AGAINST SIMPSON-BOWLES

Fox News’ Chris Wallace: Ryan Criticized President Obama For Not Acting On The Simpson-Bowles Plan He Opposed. Chris Wallace: “And he also criticized the president for doing nothing about the Bowles-Simpson plan. He was a member of the Bowles-Simpson commission, and he voted against it.” [Fox News, 8/29/12]

Washington Post Editorial: Ryan’s Account Of Debt Commission Omitted That Ryan Himself “Was Unwilling To Follow The Brave Lead Of The Republican Senators On The Panel Who Supported Its ‘Urgent’ Recommendations.” “Mr. Ryan skewered the president in his speech for creating and then walking away from a bipartisan debt commission that, he said, ‘came back with an urgent report.’ We’ve expressed similar frustrations, but omitted from Mr. Ryan’s self-serving rendition was the uncomfortable fact that Mr. Ryan served on that very commission but was unwilling to follow the brave lead of the Republican senators on the panel who supported its ‘urgent’ recommendations.” [Washington Post, Editorial, 8/29/12]

Salon’s Joan Walsh: Ryan “Derided The President For Walking Away From The Simpson Bowles Commission Deficit-Cutting Recommendations When Ryan Himself, A Commission Member, Voted Against Those Recommendations.”  [Joan Walsh, Salon, 8/30/12]

Mitt Romney tonight said he wouldn’t raise taxes on middle class families, but we know that’s not true. As independent, non-partisan analysts have highlighted, to pay for his $5 trillion tax plan that would give $250,000 tax cuts to multi-millionaires and billionaires, Mitt Romney would have to cut key tax deductions that middle class families rely on, like the mortgage interest and charitable deductions. Paying for Romney’s tax cuts means the average middle class family with kids would see their taxes go up by $2,000 a year.

ROMNEY PROPOSED $5 TRILLION IN NEW TAX CUTS WHICH WOULD SHOWER MILLIONAIRES AND BILLIONAIRES WITH EVEN MORE BENEFITS WHILE RAISING TAXES ON THE MIDDLE CLASS

Center On Budget And Policy Priorities: Romney’s New Tax Cuts Would Cost $4.9 Trillion Over A Decade, On Top Of The Cost Of Extending The Bush Tax Cuts. “The Tax Policy Center estimates that the Romney tax plan would lose about $480 billion in tax revenue in calendar year 2015, beyond the revenues losses inherent in maintaining current policy (such as continuing all of the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts).  Over the 2014-2022 period, that implies a total reduction in revenues of about $4.9 trillion, relative to current tax policy.” [Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 5/21/12]

Reuters Headline: “Romney Tax Plan Helps Rich, Hurts Middle Class-Study.” [Reuters, 8/1/12]

Boston Globe Headline: “Mitt Romney’s Tax Plan Would Offer Big Cuts To Millionaires, Raise Taxes On Middle Class, Brookings Analysts Say.” [Boston Globe, 8/1/12]

Washington Post Editorial: The Tax Policy Center Found That Under The Romney Plan “Even If Every Loophole For The Top Brackets Were Closed, There Wouldn’t Be Enough Revenue. The Middle Class Would Have To Pay More.” “The Tax Policy Center (TPC), a joint venture of the Urban Institute and the Brookings Institution, examined Mr. Romney’s claim and found that, even if every loophole for the top brackets were closed, there wouldn’t be enough revenue. The middle class would have to pay more.” [Editorial, Washington Post, 8/21/12]

ROMNEY’S TAX PLAN WOULD GIVE MULTI-MILLIONAIRES A $250,000 TAX CUT ON THE BACKS THE MIDDLE CLASS – MIDDLE CLASS FAMILIES WITH KIDS WOULD SEE AN AVERAGE TAX INCREASE OF $2,000

If Romney’s Tax Plan Was Paid For, Families With Kids Who Make Less Than $200,000 Would See An Average Tax Increase Of $2,041. [Tax Policy Center, On The Distributional Effects Of Base-Broadening Income Tax Reform, p. 18, 8/1/12]

If Romney’s Tax Plan Was Paid For, The Top 0.1% Would See An Average Tax Cut Of $246,652. [Tax Policy Center, On The Distributional Effects Of Base-Broadening Income Tax Reform, p. 19, 8/1/12]

ROMNEY’S TAX CUTS WOULD REQUIRE DEEP CUTS TO KEY TAX BENEFITS

Tax Policy Center: Assuming Romney Pays For His Tax Plan By Cutting Deductions Would Put On The Table Provisions Like Mortgage Interest, Child, And Charitable Contributions. From a Tax Policy Center analysis of Romney’s tax plan: “Given these assumptions, it may be useful to point out which tax expenditures we are assuming are ‘on the table’: employer provided health insurance and fringe benefits; the partial exclusion of social security benefits; above-the-line deductions like moving expenses; education-related benefits and tax credits; the deductions for medical expenses, state and local taxes, mortgage interest, and charitable contributions; child- and dependent-related tax credits like the child care credit, earned income tax credit, and child tax credit; and other items listed in the appendix.” [Tax Policy Center, On The Distributional Effects Of Base-Broadening Income Tax Reform, 8/1/12]

Tonight, President Obama reminded Americans that Mitt Romney has refused to any provide specifics or details about his policies – in fact, his advisors said it would be “suicidal” to detail his plans for the country because of the political ramifications if Americans knew the truth about what they entailed.

WATCH the President ask Romney if his plan is “too good” to share here: http://youtu.be/R1HIwGK8qKQ

“When Governor Romney says that he’ll replace [Obamacare] with something, but can’t detail how it will be, in fact, replaced and the reason he set up the system he did in Massachusetts was because there isn’t a better way of dealing with the pre-existing conditions problem, it just reminds me of, you know, he says that he’s going close deductions and loopholes, for his tax plan, that’s how it’s going to be paid for but we don’t know the details, he says that he’s going to replace Dodd-Frank Wall Street reform but we don’t know exactly which ones, he won’t tell us.

“He now says he’s going to replace Obamacare and assure all of good things that are in it are going to be in there been you don’t have to worry. And at some point, I think the American people have to ask themselves is the reason that Governor Romney is keeping all these plans to replace secret because they’re too good? Is it because that somehow middle class families are going to benefit too much from testimony no, the reason is, is because when we reform Wall Street, when we tackle the problem of pre-existing conditions, then you know, these tough problems and we’ve got to make choices and the choices we’ve made have been ones that ultimately are benefiting middle class families all across the country.”

ROMNEY ADVISERS SAID IT WOULD BE POLITICALLY “SUICIDAL” TO DETAIL HIS POLICY PLANS

Politico: “[Romney] Advisers Say The Campaign Has No Plans To Pivot From Its Previous View That Diving Into Details During A General-Election Race Would Be Suicidal.” [Politico, 8/17/12]

Romney Adviser: “Campaigns That Are About Specifics, Particularly In Today’s Environment, Get Tripped Up.” [Politico, 8/17/12]

Romney Adviser: The Romney Campaign Will Not Have A “Ryan-Budget Level Of Detail” Because It Would Be “Politically Unwise.” “Still, if you hoped that Romney’s selection of Ryan was going to touch off an epic war of ideas — maybe even with Ross-Perot-style charts and graphs — you’ll be badly disappointed. ‘What you’re going to see is a campaign that has clear direction, but not a Simpson-Bowles or Ryan-budget level of detail,’ the Romney adviser said. ‘It’s not only politically unwise to do that, but it’s not how the voters engage in a presidential campaign.’” [Politico, 8/17/12]

• Huffington Post Headline: “Romney Adviser: It's 'Politically Unwise' To Campaign In Specifics.” [Huffington Post, 8/17/12]

ROMNEY SAID HE LEARNED FROM HIS CAMPAIGN AGAINST KENNEDY TO NOT REVEAL SPECIFICS BECAUSE OF POLITICAL RAMIFICATIONS

Romney “Is Reluctant To Get Specific About The Programs He Would Like To Kill” Because “He Did This In His Bid For The Senate 18 Years Ago And Remembers The Political Ramifications.”  “But Romney, ever cautious, is reluctant to get specific about the programs he would like to kill. He did this in his bid for the Senate 18 years ago and remembers the political ramifications. ‘One of the things I found in a short campaign against Ted Kennedy was that when I said, for instance, that I wanted to eliminate the Department of Education, that was used to suggest I don’t care about education,’ Romney recalled. ‘So I think it’s important for me to point out that I anticipate that there will be departments and agencies that will either be eliminated or combined with other agencies. So for instance, I anticipate that housing vouchers will be turned over to the states rather than be administered at the federal level, and so at this point I think of the programs to be eliminated or to be returned to the states, and we’ll see what consolidation opportunities exist as a result of those program eliminations. So will there be some that get eliminated or combined? The answer is yes, but I’m not going to give you a list right now.’” [Stephen Hayes, Weekly Standard, 4/2/12]

• Romney: “One Of The Things I Found In A Short Campaign Against Ted Kennedy Was That When I Said, For Instance, That I Wanted To Eliminate The Department Of Education, That Was Used To Suggest I Don’t Care About Education.” [Stephen Hayes, Weekly Standard, 4/2/12]

ROMNEY VOWED TO REPEAL OBAMACARE AND “KILL IT DEAD ON ITS FIRST DAY” BUT HASN’T SAID WHAT HE WOULD REPLACE OBAMACARE WITH

Washington Post: “On Health Care, Romney Has Pledged That, On His First Day In Office, He Would Begin Repealing The Law That He And Other Republicans Call ‘Obamacare,’ But He Has Not Fully Detailed What He Would Seek To Replace It With.” [Washington Post, 5/22/12]

Huffington Post’s Sam Stein: “The Devil Is Ultimately In The Details Of The Actual Plan—Though As The Washington Post’s Ezra Klein Notes, There Are Precious Few Available.” [Sam Stein, Huffington Post, 6/13/12]

Associated Press Headline: “Romney Health Care Vision Short On Details.” [Associated Press, 6/13/12]

ROMNEY HAS NOT NAMED THE TAX DEDUCTIONS OR LOOPHOLES HE WOULD ELIMINATE, AND THE TAX POLICY CENTER SHOWED THAT EVEN IF HE ELIMINATED ALL DEDUCTIONS FOR THE WEALTHY HE WOULD HAVE TO CUT DEDUCTIONS FOR THE MIDDLE CLASS BY 58%

Factcheck.org: Romney “Has Steadfastly Refused To Say Which Tax Preferences Would Be Cut Or Reduced” Under His Tax Plan. “Romney has said he would offset the loss of personal income tax revenue (estimated at $360 billion a year by the Tax Policy Center) by reducing tax deductions and credits. And he has said he would do this while making sure that those at the top keep paying the ‘same share of the tax burden they’re paying now.’ But he has steadfastly refused to say which tax preferences would be cut or reduced.” [Factcheck.org, 8/3/12]

 

• Romney On His Tax Plan: “It Can’t Be Scored Because Those Kinds Of Details Are Going To Have To Be Worked Out With Congress.” Romney: “What I put out in my plan is a series of principles that allow our economy to grow and at the same time maintain a neutral budget impact. And so I haven’t laid out all the details of how we're going to deal with each one of the deductions and exemptions. 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 are going to have to be worked out with Congress and we have a wide array of options.” [CNBC’s Squawk Box, 3/7/12]

Tax Policy Center: Assuming Romney Pays For His Tax Plan By Limiting Deductions Would Require Eliminating 58 Percent Of Total Tax Deductions For Households Making Less Than $200,000. “However, on average, after-tax income for taxpayers earning less than $200,000 would need to decrease by 1.2 percent, an effective tax increase of $500 per household. (Revenue neutrality would require eliminating 58 percent of total tax expenditures for these households.).” [Tax Policy Center, On The Distributional Effects Of Base-Broadening Income Tax Reform, p. 6, 8/1/12]

ROMNEY VOWS TO REPEAL WALL STREET REFORM BUT HAS NO PLANS FOR PREVENTING ANOTHER FINANCIAL CRISIS

Headline: “Mitt Romney Mum On How To Regulate Big Banks” [Boston Globe, 5/2/12]

Romney Pledge To Repeal Dodd-Frank But Has Been Silent On How He Would Prevent Wall Street From Engaging In The Risky Practices That Helped Cause The 2008 Financial Crisis. “Republican Mitt Romney is pledging, if he is elected president, to repeal the Dodd-Frank financial regulations, a position favored by donors on Wall Street who have sent millions the candidate’s way. But he is nearly silent on how - without the regulation - he would prevent Wall Street from once again engaging in the risky practices that helped cause the 2008 financial crisis.” [Boston Globe, 5/2/12]

In His 150 Page Economic Plan, Romney Does Not Specify What Kind Of Financial Regulation Is Necessary. “Romney has been particularly vague about the Wall Street crash and the causes of the Great Recession. His 150-page economic plan acknowledges that financial regulation is necessary, but he doesn't specify which kind.” [TIME, 12/12/11]

 

 

Mitt Romney just said he doesn’t want to cut education, but his plan would slash investments in K-12 education and make deep cuts to Pell Grants. If applied across the board, the Romney-Ryan budget could eliminate 65,000 educator jobs and cut Pell Grants by $1,000 for 10 million students.

ROMNEY WANTS TO CUT BACK ON TEACHERS SAYING THE PRESIDENT’S PLAN TO KEEP THEM “IS NOT AN EFFECTIVE WAY TO GET THE ECONOMY GOING”

Romney: President Obama “Says We Need More Firemen, More Policemen, More Teachers” But “It’s Time For Us To Cut Back On Government And Help The American People.” ROMNEY: “[President Obama] wants to hire more government workers. He says we need more firemen, more policemen, more teachers. Did he not get the message in Wisconsin? The American people did. It’s time for us to cut back on government and help the American people." [Romney Campaign Rally, Council Bluffs, IA, 6/8/12]

Romney: “I Was Not Pleased With What I Read About A Plan To Save 240,000 Teachers.” [Romney Fundraiser, Denver Colorado, 9/9/11 (Video)]

Romney Said “Guaranteeing The Government Will Keep Its Fire, Police And Teachers Intact … Is Not An Effective Way To Get The Economy Going.” From the Quad-City Times editorial board’s story on Romney’s meeting with them: “He condemns the Obama ‘idea of simply sending out checks to people or guaranteeing the government will keep its fire, police and teachers intact. That is not an effective way to get the economy going.’” [Editorial, Quad-City Times, 12/29/11]

THE ROMNEY-RYAN BUDGET COULD ELIMINATE FUNDING FOR 65,000 EDUCATORS

The Romney-Ryan Budget Could Eliminate Funding for 65,000 Educators And Could Result in 200,000 Low-Income Children Losing Access To Early Childhood Education Programs.  "The President's plan stands in stark contrast to the plans outlined by Congressional Republicans. Most notably, the House budget passed by Republicans in Congress this spring would cut the portion of the budget that includes basic funding for education - such as Title I education grants for schools serving low-income students and Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) funding serving special needs children - by almost 20 percent in 2014. Distributed evenly across budget areas, the House Republican budget cuts to Title I would eliminate funding for 38,000 teachers and aides, and cuts to IDEA grants could eliminate support for a further 27,000 special education teachers, aides, and other staff serving children with disabilities. Funding for the preschool programs Early Head Start and Head Start would also be cut. The Congressional Republican plan could result in 200,000 low-income children losing access to these early education programs."  [White House, accessed 9/13/12]

THE ROMNEY-RYAN BUDGET COULD KICK 200,000 KIDS OFF OF HEAD START

If Cuts Were Applied Across The Board, The Ryan Budget Would Mean “Roughly Two Million Slots In Head Start Would Be Eliminated Over The Next Decade — Cutting 200,000 Children From The Program In 2014 Alone.” “Yesterday, House Republicans released their budget resolution for FY 2013… On top of the roughly $1 trillion in cuts in the Budget Control Act, it would be difficult to overstate the radicalism of the domestic cuts proposed by the House budget resolution. In 2013, it would cut annual non-defense funding by 5 percent. By 2014, the resolution would cut this funding by 19 percent in purely nominal terms… Roughly two million slots in Head Start would be eliminated over the next decade — cutting 200,000 children from the program in 2014 alone.” [Jeff Zients, Acting Director of the Office of Management and Budget, WH.gov, 3/21/12]

THE ROMNEY-RYAN PLAN COULD SLASH PELL GRANTS BY $1,000 FOR NEARLY 10 MILLION STUDENTS

If Cuts Were Applied Across The Board, The Ryan Budget Would Slash Education, Meaning “9.6 Million Students Would See Their Pell Grants Fall By More Than $1000 In 2014, And, Over The Next Decade, Over One Million Students Would Lose Support Altogether.” “Yesterday, House Republicans released their budget resolution for FY 2013… On top of the roughly $1 trillion in cuts in the Budget Control Act, it would be difficult to overstate the radicalism of the domestic cuts proposed by the House budget resolution. In 2013, it would cut annual non-defense funding by 5 percent. By 2014, the resolution would cut this funding by 19 percent in purely nominal terms… 9.6 million students would see their Pell Grants fall by more than $1000 in 2014, and, over the next decade, over one million students would lose support altogether.” [Jeff Zients, Acting Director of the Office of Management and Budget, WH.gov, 3/21/12]

PRESIDENT OBAMA DOUBLED FUNDING FOR PELL GRANTS AND HAS A PLAN TO MAKE COLLEGE MORE AFFORDABLE

President Obama Signed Legislation Stopping Interest Rates From Doubling For An Estimated 7.4 Million Students Expected To Get New Loans This Year. “It also keeps interest rates of 3.4 percent for subsidized Stafford loans for undergraduates. If Congress hadn't acted, the rate would have doubled beginning July 1 for an estimated 7.4 million students expected to get new loans this year, adding an extra $1,000 to the average cost of each loan.” [The Associated Press, 07/06/12]

Student Loan Reform Eliminated $68 Billion Paid To Banks Acting As Intermediaries To Invest In Pell Grants. “The new law will eliminate fees paid to private banks to act as intermediaries in providing loans to college students and use much of the nearly $68 billion in savings over 11 years to expand Pell grants and make it easier for students to repay outstanding loans after graduating. The law also invests $2 billion in community colleges over the next four years to provide education and career training programs to workers eligible for trade adjustment aid after dislocation in their industries.” [New York Times, 3/30/10]

President Obama Doubled Funding For Pell Grants, Raising The Maximum Award And Increasing The Number Of Recipients To Nearly 10 Million Students. “Thanks in part to these new investments, President Obama has roughly doubled funding for the need-based Pell Grant program, raising the maximum award from $4,731 in fiscal year 2008 to an estimated $5,635 for fiscal year 2013 and increasing the number of recipients by approximately 50 percent to nearly 10 million students.” [Department of Education Budget Summary, Accessed 04/15/12]

President Obama: “Help Us Work With Colleges And Universities To Cut In Half The Growth Of Tuition Costs Over The Next Ten Years.” “Help us work with colleges and universities to cut in half the growth of tuition costs over the next ten years. We can meet that goal together.” [President Obama’s Remarks At The Democratic National Convention, 09/07/12]

Mitt Romney tonight promised to repeal Obamacare, but he hasn’t laid out a single specific idea to protect millions of Americans who now have coverage under the law. That’s because the truth about what he’d do would be devastating for middle class families. If he has his way, insurance companies would once again be allowed to discriminate against Americans with pre-existing conditions, charge women higher premiums than they charge men for the same coverage, and kick kids off their parents' plans when they graduate from college or high school.

ROMNEY VOWED TO REPEAL OBAMACARE AND “KILL IT DEAD ON ITS FIRST DAY” BUT HASN’T SAID WHAT HE WOULD REPLACE OBAMACARE WITH

Washington Post: “On Health Care, Romney Has Pledged That, On His First Day In Office, He Would Begin Repealing The Law That He And Other Republicans Call ‘Obamacare,’ But He Has Not Fully Detailed What He Would Seek To Replace It With.” [Washington Post, 5/22/12]

Huffington Post’s Sam Stein: “The Devil Is Ultimately In The Details Of The Actual Plan—Though As The Washington Post’s Ezra Klein Notes, There Are Precious Few Available.” [Sam Stein, Huffington Post, 6/13/12]

Associated Press Headline: “Romney Health Care Vision Short On Details.” [Associated Press, 6/13/12]

ROMNEY’S PLAN FOR PEOPLE WITH PRE-EXISTING CONDITIONS WOULD GO BACK TO ALLOWING INSURANCE COMPANIES TO DENY THEM COVERAGE

New York Magazine’s Jonathan Chait:  “In Other Words, It’s Not True. Romney Doesn’t Have A Plan, Or Even A Vague Outline Of A Plan, To Cover People With Preexisting Conditions.”  [Jonathan Chait, New York Magazine, 9/10/12]

REPEALING THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT WOULD LEAVE 129 MILLION AMERICANS WITH PRE-EXISTING CONDITIONS UNPROTECTED, MILLIONS OF YOUNG ADULTS WOULD LOSE COVERAGE, AND INSURANCE COMPANIES COULD CONTINUE CHARGING WOMEN MORE THAN MEN FOR THE SAME COVERAGE

Under The Affordable Care Act, Insurance Companies Will No Longer Be Able To Deny Coverage Because Of Pre-Existing Conditions. “Up to one in five non-elderly Americans with a pre-existing condition – 25 million individuals – is uninsured.  Under the Affordable Care Act, starting in 2014, these Americans cannot be denied coverage, be charged significantly higher premiums, be subjected to an extended waiting period, or have their benefits curtailed by insurance companies.” [Healthcare.gov, Accessed 12/30/11]

• There Are As Many As 129 Million Non-Elderly Americans With Some Type Of Pre-Existing Condition. “According to a new analysis by the Department of Health and Human Services, 50 to 129 million (19 to 50 percent of) non-elderly Americans have some type of pre-existing health condition.” [Healthcare.gov, 03/2011]

Over 3 Million Young Adults Gained Health Care Coverage Because Of The Provision Allowing Young Adults Under 26 To Remain On Their Parents’ Insurance. “New survey findings released today by the National Center for Health Statistics show that the extension of dependent health coverage up to age 26 continues to lead to greater rates of insurance coverage among young adults. This policy is one part of the Affordable Care Act, and it took effect for insurance plan renewals beginning on September 23, 2010. The new estimates show that from September 2010 to December 2011, the percentage of adults 19 to 25 with insurance coverage increased from 64.4% to 74.8%, which translates into over 3 million additional young adults with coverage.” [Department of Health and Human Services, 06/19/12]

In 2014, Health Care Reform Will Prevent Insurers From Charging Women Higher Premiums Than They Charge Men. “Before the law, women could be charged more for individual insurance policies simply because of their gender. A 22-year-old woman could be charged 150% the premium that a 22-year-old man paid. In 2014, insurers will not be able to charge women higher premiums than they charge men.” [HealthCare.gov, accessed 7/28/11]

 

Mitt Romney tonight promised to repeal Obamacare, but he hasn’t laid out a single specific idea to protect millions of Americans who now have coverage under the law. That’s because the truth about what he’d do would be devastating for middle class families. If he has his way, insurance companies would once again be allowed to discriminate against Americans with pre-existing conditions, charge women higher premiums than they charge men for the same coverage, and kick kids off their parents' plans when they graduate from college or high school.

ROMNEY VOWED TO REPEAL OBAMACARE AND “KILL IT DEAD ON ITS FIRST DAY” BUT HASN’T SAID WHAT HE WOULD REPLACE OBAMACARE WITH

Washington Post: “On Health Care, Romney Has Pledged That, On His First Day In Office, He Would Begin Repealing The Law That He And Other Republicans Call ‘Obamacare,’ But He Has Not Fully Detailed What He Would Seek To Replace It With.” [Washington Post, 5/22/12]

Huffington Post’s Sam Stein: “The Devil Is Ultimately In The Details Of The Actual Plan—Though As The Washington Post’s Ezra Klein Notes, There Are Precious Few Available.” [Sam Stein, Huffington Post, 6/13/12]

Associated Press Headline: “Romney Health Care Vision Short On Details.” [Associated Press, 6/13/12]

ROMNEY’S PLAN FOR PEOPLE WITH PRE-EXISTING CONDITIONS WOULD GO BACK TO ALLOWING INSURANCE COMPANIES TO DENY THEM COVERAGE

New York Magazine’s Jonathan Chait:  “In Other Words, It’s Not True. Romney Doesn’t Have A Plan, Or Even A Vague Outline Of A Plan, To Cover People With Preexisting Conditions.”  [Jonathan Chait, New York Magazine, 9/10/12]

REPEALING THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT WOULD LEAVE 129 MILLION AMERICANS WITH PRE-EXISTING CONDITIONS UNPROTECTED, MILLIONS OF YOUNG ADULTS WOULD LOSE COVERAGE, AND INSURANCE COMPANIES COULD CONTINUE CHARGING WOMEN MORE THAN MEN FOR THE SAME COVERAGE

Under The Affordable Care Act, Insurance Companies Will No Longer Be Able To Deny Coverage Because Of Pre-Existing Conditions. “Up to one in five non-elderly Americans with a pre-existing condition – 25 million individuals – is uninsured.  Under the Affordable Care Act, starting in 2014, these Americans cannot be denied coverage, be charged significantly higher premiums, be subjected to an extended waiting period, or have their benefits curtailed by insurance companies.” [Healthcare.gov, Accessed 12/30/11]

• There Are As Many As 129 Million Non-Elderly Americans With Some Type Of Pre-Existing Condition. “According to a new analysis by the Department of Health and Human Services, 50 to 129 million (19 to 50 percent of) non-elderly Americans have some type of pre-existing health condition.” [Healthcare.gov, 03/2011]

Over 3 Million Young Adults Gained Health Care Coverage Because Of The Provision Allowing Young Adults Under 26 To Remain On Their Parents’ Insurance. “New survey findings released today by the National Center for Health Statistics show that the extension of dependent health coverage up to age 26 continues to lead to greater rates of insurance coverage among young adults. This policy is one part of the Affordable Care Act, and it took effect for insurance plan renewals beginning on September 23, 2010. The new estimates show that from September 2010 to December 2011, the percentage of adults 19 to 25 with insurance coverage increased from 64.4% to 74.8%, which translates into over 3 million additional young adults with coverage.” [Department of Health and Human Services, 06/19/12]

In 2014, Health Care Reform Will Prevent Insurers From Charging Women Higher Premiums Than They Charge Men. “Before the law, women could be charged more for individual insurance policies simply because of their gender. A 22-year-old woman could be charged 150% the premium that a 22-year-old man paid. In 2014, insurers will not be able to charge women higher premiums than they charge men.” [HealthCare.gov, accessed 7/28/11]

Tonight, President Obama reminded Americans that Romneycare was the model for Obamacare – which is providing the middle class with the security of affordable health insurance and expanding access to care – but now Romney wants to repeal Obamacare on day one:

“Governor Romney said this has to be done on a bipartisan basis – this was a bipartisan idea, in fact it’s a Republican idea and Governor Romney at the beginning of this debate wrote and said what we did in Massachusetts could be a model for the inauguration and I agree that the Democrat legislators in Massachusetts might have given some advice to Republicans in Congress about how to cooperate but the fact of the matter is we used the same advisors and they say it’s the same plan.”

ROMNEYCARE WAS THE MODEL FOR OBAMACARE

Headline: “Romneycare Was ‘Template’ For Obamacare” [James Pethokoukis, American Enterprise Institute, 1/26/12]

Politifact: The Massachusetts Plan Did Serve As A Model For The Affordable Care Act. “‘Romneycare was model for Obamacare.’ Rick Perry on Tuesday, October 11th, 2011 in a tweet… Although the federal law isn’t an exact replica of the one in Massachusetts, the plan signed by Romney certainly served as a model. We rate the statement as True.” [Politifact, 10/21/11]

Wall Street Journal: “Everyone Knows, The Health Reform Mr. Romney Passed In 2006 As Massachusetts Governor Was The Prototype For President Obama’s Version And Gave National Health Care A Huge Political Boost.”  [Editorial, Wall Street Journal, 5/12/11]

ROMNEYCARE OFFICIALS HELPED WITH THE CREATION OF THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT

White House Records Show Senior Obama Administration Officials Used Romneycare As A Model For The Affordable Care Act Including Recruiting Romney’s Own Health Care Advisers To Craft The National Bill. NBC wrote on Romney’s health care advisors, advising the White House on health care reform: “Newly obtained White House records provide fresh details on how senior Obama administration officials used Mitt Romney’s landmark health-care law in Massachusetts as a model for the new federal law, including recruiting some of Romney’s own health care advisers and experts to help craft the act now derided by Republicans as ‘Obamacare.’” [NBC, 10/10/11]

The Hill Headline: “Architect Of Romney’s Health Bill Says It’s ‘The Same’ As Obama’s.” [Hill, 11/16/11]

Jonathan Gruber: “Make No Mistake: The Affordable Care Act Is Based On Massachusetts’s Success,” And Several Of The Architects Of Romneycare Worked Closely With The Obama Administration “To Translate The Lessons From Massachusetts Onto The National Stage.”  Jonathan Gruber, Professor of Economics at MIT wrote, “The core of the ACA is the same ‘three legged stool’ that was first developed in Massachusetts. Several of the architects of Massachusetts reform, including myself, worked closely with the Administration and Congress to translate the lessons from Massachusetts onto the national stage. And experts project that the ACA will have similar success, reducing the number of uninsured Americans by 30 million.” [Jonathan Gruber Op-Ed, The Republican on MassLive, 4/11/12]

• Jon Gruber Who Helped Write Obamacare And The Massachusetts Health Care Law: “The Federal Reform Is Simply A More Ambitious Version Of The Massachusetts Reform.” “‘The federal reform is simply a more ambitious version of the Massachusetts reform,’ said Jon Gruber, a professor of economics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge who helped policy makers write both laws. ‘Within three years, we should see that the federal reform has covered the uninsured and stabilized the non-group market covering individuals who now face much higher premiums, Gruber said in a telephone interview.” [Bloomberg, 3/26/12]

ROMNEY TOUTED ROMNEYCARE AS A “MODEL FOR THE NATION”

2007: Romney Said That The Massachusetts Plan “Will Be A Model For The Nation.” “During a speech in Baltimore on Feb. 2, 2007, Romney outlined his ambitions for the Massachusetts plan. ‘I’m proud of what we’ve done,’ he said. ‘If Massachusetts succeeds in implementing it, then that will be a model for the nation.’ Last month Romney’s dream came true. If Republicans knew what was good for them, they would stop treating it as a nightmare.” [Newsweek, 4/16/10]

Romney Touted Romneycare During The National Health Care Reform Debate Saying “The Lessons We Learned In Massachusetts Could Help Washington… No Other State Has Made As Much Progress In Covering Their Uninsured.” Romney wrote in an op-ed about national health care reform being debated in Congress: “And the lessons we learned in Massachusetts could help Washington find it. No other state has made as much progress in covering their uninsured as Massachusetts.” [Romney Op-Ed, USA Today, 7/30/09]

Romney On Whether The Massachusetts Plan Could Be A Model For The Country: “I Think There Are A Number Of Features In The Massachusetts Plan That Could Inform Washington On Ways To Improve Health Care For All Americans… A Model I Think They Could Learn From.” CNN’s Jim Acosta: “Do you think this plan, the Massachusetts plan could be a model for the country?” Romney: “I think there are a number of features in the Massachusetts plan that could inform Washington on ways to improve health care for all Americans. The fact that we have portable insurance and that we were about to get people insured without a government option is a model I think they could learn from.” [CNN, 8/20/09-8/22/09]

Romney Told House Republicans That They “Should Be First To Propose A Republican Plan To Bring Health Insurance To All Americans” And Said “What We Did In Massachusetts Is A Good Model To Start From.” Romney said in a speech to House Republicans: “We should be first to propose a Republican plan to bring health insurance to all Americans, one based on market dynamics, free choice, and personal responsibility. I think what we did in Massachusetts is a good model to start from, but whatever direction we take, let’s not simply react to what the Democrats do. Their own plan would undoubtedly create a vast new system of costly entitlements and bureaucratic dictates, burdening the people and threatening the economy. Americans will be looking for a better alternative. Let’s give it to them.” [Romney Speech, House Republican Conference Retreat, 1/30/09]

REPEALING THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT  WOULD PREVENT MILLIONS OF AMERICANS FROM GAINING COVERAGE

The Affordable Care Act Provides All Americans Access To Affordable Health Care Coverage. “In 2014, all Americans – regardless of their health status – will have access to affordable coverage either through their employer or through new competitive marketplaces called Exchanges, and insurers will be prohibited from charging more or denying coverage to anyone based on the state of their health.” [healthcare.gov, 12/09/11]

The Affordable Care Act Will Enable An Additional 30 Million People To Gain Insurance. “CBO and JCT now estimate that the ACA, in comparison with prior law before the enactment of the ACA, will reduce the number of nonelderly people without health insurance coverage by 14 million in 2014 and by 29 million or 30 million in the latter part of the coming decade.” [Congressional Budget Office, 7/24/12]

 

While Mitt Romney said that he worked effectively across the aisle as the governor of Massachusetts, the facts tell a different story. As Governor, Romney was more interested in running for President and picking fights than building governing coalitions. His doors were closed to lawmakers and Massachusetts legislators have panned his tenure as Governor.

Here are the facts:

MASSACHUSETTS LEADERSHIP DISPUTE CLAIMS THAT ROMNEY WORKED WITH THEM SAYING TO CALL ROMNEY “DISENGAGED WOULD BE CHARITABLE”

Former Massachusetts Senate President Tom Birmingham: “To Call [Romney] Disengaged Would Be Charitable.” “’He made no effort to get acquainted with lawmakers,’ said Tom Birmingham, a former state Senate president who left just before Romney took office. ‘To call him disengaged would be charitable.’" [Associated Press, 8/2/12]

Former Massachusetts House Speaker Tom Finneran: “Initially His Sense Was, `I Have Been Elected Governor, I Am The CEO Here And You Guys Are The Board Of Directors And You Monitor The Implementation Of What I Say.'" “’Initially his sense was, “I have been elected governor, I am the CEO here and you guys are the board of directors and you monitor the implementation of what I say,” Finneran said. ‘That ruffled the feathers of legislators who see themselves as an equal branch (of government).’ Finneran said that, while he grew to respect Romney, ‘you have to work to have a conversation with him.’" [Associated Press, 8/2/12]

• After “Romney Delivered A Powerpoint Presentation Brimming With Numbers And Charts On His Plan For Fixing The Budget,” Former House Speaker Tom Finneran Said “Romney Was Issuing Marching Orders Not Seeking Their Advice.” “Former House Speaker Tom Finneran, a Democrat, recalled being "summoned" along with fellow legislative leaders by Romney for a meeting on the state's fiscal crisis early in Romney's term. Romney delivered a PowerPoint presentation brimming with numbers and charts on his plan for fixing the budget. Finneran said it quickly became apparent that Romney was issuing marching orders, not seeking their advice.” [Associated Press, 8/2/12]

Associated Press: “Some Democratic Lawmakers Accused Romney Of Being Aloof, Unapproachable And Not Much Interested In Working With Them” And His “Legislative Agenda On Big Issues Like Transportation And Higher Education Fizzled As A Result.” “Some Democratic lawmakers accused Romney of being aloof, unapproachable and not much interested in working with them to build the kind of friendships and alliances that are needed to help pass legislation. They say Romney's legislative agenda on big issues like transportation and higher education fizzled as a result.” [Associated Press, 8/2/12]

ROMNEY WAS MORE INTERESTED IN PICKING FIGHTS THAN BUILDING COALITIONS

As Governor, Romney Had A Style Marked By “Disinterest In Bipartisan Collaboration.” “Romney's ability to wield the bully pulpit circumventing inflexible lawmakers and appealing directly to the public was a hallmark of his tenure, and it hints at the CEO style of leadership that he might bring to the White House. The flip side of that style is Romney's relative disinterest in bipartisan collaboration, a practice that's already rare in Washington.” [National Journal, 11/10/11]

As Governor, Romney “Furnished The Massachusetts Press Corps, Always Looking For Conflict, With A Running Narrative Of Combat” Against Democratic Legislators – A Departure From His GOP Predecessors. “Instead of trying to cut deals with legislators, Romney positioned himself as the anti-Beacon-Hill governor, capitalizing on public mistrust of what his campaign team had framed as the Democratic ‘gang.’ He furnished the Massachusetts press corps, always looking for conflict, with a running narrative of combat. That was a departure from the collegiality of Romney's GOP predecessors. With Bill Weld, Paul Cellucci, and then Swift, Democratic legislators were accustomed to chief executives who either rose along similar career paths, as did Cellucci and Swift, or showed Brahmin bemusement at their roguish ways, as did Weld.” [National Journal, 11/10/11]

MetroWest Daily News Editorial: Romney Failed To Establish Strong Working Relationship With Legislative Leaders And Seemed More Interested In “Picking The Right Fights Than In Building Coalitions To Solve Problems.”  “Gov. Mitt Romney makes his official exit today, taking the traditional ‘lone walk’ down the State House steps a day early so as not to run into Deval Patrick’s inauguration ceremony. That act is symbolic in two ways: He leaves as a loner with his own personal agenda, who never became a full member of Massachusetts’ governing class, and he’s leaving before his term is officially finished, though months after he turned his attention away from the Bay State in pursuit of national office…Some had potential, but Romney failed to do the political work required to bring them to fruition. Romney never established a solid working relationship with legislative leaders.  And while he is a good speaker and effective on the stump, he leaves the Massachusetts Republican Party weaker than ever…Too often, though, Romney has appeared more interested in picking the right fights than in building coalitions to solve problems.”  [Editorial, MetroWest Daily News, 1/3/07]

ROMNEY’S OFFICE WASN’T OPEN TO LAWMAKERS

As Governor, Romney Commandeered One Of The Massachusetts Statehouse Elevators, Barring The Public, Lawmakers And Reporters From Using It. “Veteran lawmakers complained about lack of access to Romney, a perception that wasn't helped by his decision to commandeer one of the Statehouse elevators, barring the public, lawmakers and reporters from using it during his four-year term. The elevator became a symbol of his aloofness. (It was reopened to the public after he left.)” [Associated Press, 2/4/12]

While Romney Was Governor, Troopers Erected Velvet Ropes In Front Of Romney’s Office And “Ensured That Few Approached The Governor Who Were Not Expected.” “During Romney’s four years as governor, the troopers reserved one of the two elevators outside the Corner Office solely for Romney’s use. They also erected velvet ropes in front of his office, allowing only those approved to enter. The beefy men and unflinching women of the detail ensured that few approached the governor who were not expected.” [Boston Globe, 2/3/12]

As Governor, Romney “Dismantled A Network Of Legislative Liaisons That Lawmakers Had Long Relied Upon For Expertise On How To Word A Bill Or Assist A Constituent, Requiring Them Instead To Route All Requests Through The Governor’s Office.” “Once in office, Mr. Romney brought a top-down, business-minded approach to government, even if it meant brushing aside cherished legislative traditions. He quickly dismantled a network of legislative liaisons that lawmakers had long relied upon for expertise on how to word a bill or assist a constituent, requiring them instead to route all requests through the governor’s office. ‘He wanted to control everything,’ said Pamela P. Resor, a state senator who objected to the change.” [New York Times, 3/9/12]

 

 

Mitt Romney repeated tonight that he would repeal Wall Street reform, allowing Wall Street to return to the risky financial deals  that eroded middle-class security, destroyed trillions of dollars of wealth, and cost millions of workers their jobs. And he has no plan to replace it. The Wall Street reform that President Obama championed ensures that we end taxpayer-funded bailouts of the financial sector and protects the middle class from the risky financial deals that crashed our economy in the first place. And it does so while supporting community banks – putting them on a more level playing field with Wall Street.

ROMNEY VOWS TO REPEAL WALL STREET REFORM BUT HAS NO PLANS FOR PREVENTING ANOTHER FINANCIAL CRISIS

Headline: “Mitt Romney Mum On How To Regulate Big Banks” [Boston Globe, 5/2/12]

Romney Pledge To Repeal Dodd-Frank But Has Been Silent On How He Would Prevent Wall Street From Engaging In The Risky Practices That Helped Cause The 2008 Financial Crisis. “Republican Mitt Romney is pledging, if he is elected president, to repeal the Dodd-Frank financial regulations, a position favored by donors on Wall Street who have sent millions the candidate’s way. But he is nearly silent on how - without the regulation - he would prevent Wall Street from once again engaging in the risky practices that helped cause the 2008 financial crisis.” [Boston Globe, 5/2/12]

In His 150 Page Economic Plan, Romney Does Not Specify What Kind Of Financial Regulation Is Necessary. “Romney has been particularly vague about the Wall Street crash and the causes of the Great Recession. His 150-page economic plan acknowledges that financial regulation is necessary, but he doesn't specify which kind.” [TIME, 12/12/11]

THE FINANCIAL CRISIS DEVASTATED FAMILIES ACROSS THE COUNTRY

Following The Failure Of Lehman Brothers, “Stock Prices Began A Free Fall, Undermining The Wealth And The Retirement Accounts Of Millions Of Americans.” “The latest job numbers were stark evidence of a breakdown in consumer spending and business investment since mid-September, when the Treasury Department and the Federal Reserve decided to let Lehman Brothers fail, delivering a shock to the financial sector. Almost simultaneously, stock prices began a free fall, undermining the wealth and the retirement accounts of millions of Americans.” [New York Times, 12/5/2008]

Mortgage Bankers Association: “One In 10 Mortgage Holders Was Either Delinquent On Loans In September Or In Foreclosure.”  “With home prices still in decline, one in 10 mortgage holders was either delinquent on loans in September or in foreclosure, the Mortgage Bankers Association reported Friday. That was up from 9.2 percent in June and the highest percentage since the association began to collect this data 30 years ago.” [New York Times, 12/5/2008]

 

Mitt Romney has a long record of outsourcing and would promote it as president. As independent news reports have highlighted, Mitt Romney invested in companies that were pioneers of outsourcing and as governor, he helped ship Massachusetts jobs to India. But Mitt Romney would promote outsourcing by eliminating corporations’ taxes on overseas profits, which could create 800,000 jobs overseas in countries like China, India, and Mexico. President Obama has a jobs plan that would close corporate loopholes and eliminate tax breaks to companies that ship jobs overseas, and instead reward companies that create more jobs here at home.

ROMNEY LED INVESTMENTS IN COMPANIES THAT OUTSOURCED JOBS, INCLUDING SOME COMPANIES THAT GREW INTO SOME OF THE LARGEST OUTSOURCING AND OFFSHORING COMPANIES IN THE WORLD

Washington Post: “Mitt Romney’s Financial Company, Bain Capital, Invested In A Series Of Firms That Specialized In Relocating Jobs Done By American Workers To New Facilities In Low-Wage Countries Like China And India.” [Washington Post, 6/22/12]

• Washington Post: “During The 15 Years That Romney Was Actively Involved In Running Bain…It Owned Companies That Were Pioneers In The Practice Of Shipping Work From The United States To Overseas Call Centers And Factories.” “During the nearly 15 years that Romney was actively involved in running Bain, a private equity firm that he founded, it owned companies that were pioneers in the practice of shipping work from the United States to overseas call centers and factories making computer components, according to filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission.” [Washington Post, 6/22/12]

• Washington Post Ombudsman: “Bain Knowingly And Far-Sightedly Made Strategic Investments, With Romney At The Helm, In These Pioneering Outsourcing Firms In The Late 1990s, Which Grew Into Some Of The Largest Outsourcing And Offshoring Companies In The World. And Romney And Bain Shared In Their Profits While He Was Chief Executive And After He Left.” [Washington Post, 6/29/12]

Bain Capital Earned Double The Return On Its Investment In Holson Burnes But Workers Were Left Jobless And Work Was Shipped Overseas. “For Bain, the plan was a financial success: Holson Burnes raised $24 million from its initial public offering on the over-the-counter trading market, with Bain executives retaining the majority of the company’s shares. Bain, in the end, reaped more than double the return on its initial investment. But workers were left jobless just as the local economy began to slump. … The cost-cutting continued at Holson Burnes. By 1992, the company manufactured nearly 75 percent of its photo frames overseas, according to documents filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission. One of the company’s clock-making divisions also shipped work overseas from a Rhode Island plant.” [Associated Press, 12/19/11]

Bain Capital Invested In A Circuit-Board Manufacturer Company That Sent Production From Colorado To Mexico. “Two companies that Bain had an investment in closed a printed circuit-board manufacturing plant they had in the state, costing several hundred jobs when production was sent to Dallas in one case and to Mexico in another.” [Denver Post, 5/29/12]

• During Bain Capital’s Investment, Circuit-Board Manufacturer SMTC Corp. Announced It Would Close The Denver, CO Plant And Move Production To Chihuahua, Mexico. “To offset losses, SMTC will close an assembly plant in Denver and take a one-time charge of $15 million to $20 million. Production from Denver will move to Chihuahua, Mexico.” [TheStreet.com, 3/30/01]

ROMNEY VETOED A PROPOSAL TO PREVENT MASSACHUSETTS FROM SENDING STATE JOBS OVERSEAS AND SIGNED A CONTRACT FOR A CALL CENTER IN INDIA

2004: Romney Vetoed Legislation That Would Have Barred Outsourcing of Massachusetts State Jobs Overseas. “In a surprise move, Romney also vetoed a provision barring overseas outsourcing by vendors doing business with the state, even though in March he proposed a $29 million package of incentives designed to discourage Massachusetts companies from moving jobs out of state. Romney said that the plan included in the budget was hastily crafted and would drive away some businesses while failing to create jobs here.” [Boston Globe, 6/26/04]

Romney’s Administration Signed A Contract For A Food Stamp System That Involved A Call Center In India. “When Romney was governor of Massachusetts, his administration signed a $160,000-per-month contract with Citigroup to operate an electronic food stamp system that included a consumer call center in India.” [Boston Globe, Political Intelligence, 5/2/12]

Boston Herald: “Gov. Mitt Romney Admitted Yesterday That He Sent State Jobs To India And Then Utah.” [Boston Herald, 2/23/06]

PRESIDENT OBAMA WOULD END TAX BREAKS FOR COMPANIES SHIPPING JOBS OVERSEAS AND CUT TAXES FOR COMPANIES BRINGING JOBS BACK TO AMERICA…

President Obama’s Tax Reform Framework Removes Tax Deductions For Moving Production Overseas And Provides New Incentives For Bringing Production Back To The United States. “Remove tax deductions for moving productions overseas and provide new incentives for bringing production back to the United States. The tax code currently allows companies moving operations overseas to deduct their moving expenses—and reduce their taxes in the United States as a result. The President is proposing that companies will no longer be allowed to claim tax deductions for moving their operations abroad. At the same time, to help bring jobs home, the President is proposing to give a 20 percent income tax credit for the expenses of moving operations back into the United States.” [The President’s Framework For Tax Reform, February 2012]

…BUT ROMNEY ATTACKED THE PRESIDENT’S PLAN, SAYING IT WOULD “KILL JOBS”

Romney “Attacked President Obama's New Tax Plan” Which Would “Eliminate A Number Of Existing Tax Breaks And Subsidies For Corporations And Reduce The Marginal Corporate Income Tax Rate From 35 Percent Down To 28 Percent.” [Washington Times, 2/22/12; Romney Rally, Chandler, AZ, 2/22/12]

• Romney: President Obama’s Corporate Tax Reform Proposal Would “Kill Jobs.” “Mitt Romney charged Wednesday that President Obama's new corporate tax proposal would kill jobs, and instead offered some details of his own plan to address the nation's tax code. … ‘He's proposing today a corporate tax plan which I understand sounds like he's lowering taxes but he's raising taxes – raising taxes on businesses by hundreds of billions of dollars,’ Romney said. ‘Raising taxes will kill jobs. My plan will create jobs. That's the difference between the two of us.’” [CNN, 2/22/12; Romney Rally, Chandler, AZ, 2/22/12]

ROMNEY’S PLAN TO ALLOW CORPORATIONS INVESTING OVERSEAS TO AVOID U.S. TAXES COULD ENTICE COMPANIES TO CREATE 800,000 JOBS OVERSEAS

Reuters: “A Territorial System Would Prompt U.S. Companies To Shift Offshore Even More Income Than They Already Do And Jobs Would Follow, Worsening Unemployment And The Economy, Critics Say.” [Reuters, 9/14/11]

Citizens For Tax Justice: “Giving Corporations A Permanent Tax Exemption For Their Purported Offshore Profits Will Make Things Much Worse.” [Reuters, 9/14/11]

Economist Kim Clausing: Under A Territorial Tax System “The Tax Incentive To Locate Jobs In Low-Tax Countries Would Increase Significantly” Which “Would Increase Employment In Low-Tax Countries By About 800,000 Jobs.” “What would the effects be if the United States shifted to a pure territorial system? … it would encourage job creation abroad instead of at home. Based on my research and that of other experts in international taxation, it is possible to estimate how many jobs are at stake in this debate. In 2008 U.S. multinational firms employed 10 million workers in affiliated firms abroad. Under a pure territorial tax system, the tax incentive to locate jobs in low-tax countries would increase significantly, which I calculate would increase employment in low-tax countries by about 800,000 jobs.” [Kimberly A. Clausing, A Challenging Time for International Tax Policy, Tax Notes, 7/16/12]

• Economist Kim Clausing: Under A Territorial Tax System, The 800,000 Jobs Created Overseas “Could Displace Jobs At Home.” “Under a pure territorial tax system, the tax incentive to locate jobs in low-tax countries would increase significantly, which I calculate would increase employment in low-tax countries by about 800,000 jobs… If U.S. unemployment rates are low, jobs abroad need not displace jobs at home, although the composition of jobs may change (and multinational corporate jobs are often good, high-wage jobs). In this economy, however, those new, low-tax-country jobs could displace jobs at home. With high unemployment rates, why further tilt the playing field in favor of jobs in low-tax countries? And given today’s budget climate, avoiding further erosion of the corporate tax base should be a priority.” [Kimberly A. Clausing, A Challenging Time for International Tax Policy, Tax Notes, 7/16/12]

Mitt Romney just repeated the false claim that the President made $716 billion in cuts to Medicare and has no plan to protect the program. The AARP endorsed Obamacare because it extended the life of the program by nearly a decade by reducing unnecessary insurance company subsidies and rooting out waste and fraud. Mitt Romney’s plan would bankrupt Medicare by 2016, turn the program into a voucher system, and could increase costs for seniors by more than $6,000 a year – based on an analysis of his current plan. In fact, the savings Romney just decried were included in his running mate’s budget, which Romney called “marvelous” and promised to sign into law.

THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT EXTENDS THE SOLVENCY OF MEDICARE PART A TO 2024, CUTS WASTE AND FRAUD IN MEDICARE,  AND STRENGTHEN BENEFITS FOR SENIORS

AARP:  The Affordable Care Act “Protects And Strengthens Guaranteed Benefits In Medicare.”  “The legislative package [the Affordable Care Act] cracks down on insurance company abuses and protects and strengthens guaranteed benefits in Medicare, the program millions of our members depend on and in which millions more will soon enroll. It closes the dreaded Medicare Part D ‘doughnut hole,’ a gap in prescription drug coverage that is life-threatening for many. … And it improves efforts to crack down on fraud and waste in Medicare, strengthening the program for today’s seniors and future generations.” [AARP Press Release, 3/10/12]

The Affordable Care Act Extends The Solvency Of Medicare Part A To 2024, Eight Years Longer Than Without Health Care Reform. “The Medicare Trustees Report released today shows that the Hospital Insurance (HI) Trust Fund is expected to remain solvent until 2024, the same as last year’s estimate, but action is needed to secure its long-term future.  In 2011, the HI Trust Fund expenditures were lower than expected. Without the Affordable Care Act, the HI Trust Fund would expire 8 years earlier, in 2016. ” [Center For Medicare & Medicaid Services, 04/23/12]

• The President’s Budget Would Extend Medicare’s Solvency An Additional Two Years. “The Budget contains several proposals that build on initiatives included in the ACA to help extend Medicare’s solvency while encouraging provider efficiencies and improved patient care. Specifically, the Budget modifies payments to certain providers, to address payments that exceed patient care costs. It also reduces Medicare’s payments to providers for beneficiaries’ nonpayment of their deductibles and copayments. The Budget also aligns Medicare drug payment policies with Medicaid policies for low-income beneficiaries. These, along with other Medicare proposals, would extend the solvency of the Hospital Insurance trust fund for an estimated two years.” [Fiscal Year 2013 Budget, February 2012]

ABC News Fact Check: Spending Will Be Reduced By Getting Rid of Fraud and Ending Overpayment To Private Insurance Companies.” “Medicare spending will continue to grow, according to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), but ACA will slow that growth….spending will be reduced by getting rid of fraud and ending overpayments to private insurance companies. It sends a message to those insurance companies: Operate more efficiently.”  [ABC News, 6/28/12]

Cleveland Plain Dealer Politifact Has Rated The Assertion That The Affordable Care Act Cuts Medicare False. “The NRSC’s claim cites a real figure -- $500 billion -- that is part of the health reform debate. But it incorrectly describes it as $500 billion in Medicare cuts, rather than as decreases in the rate of growth of future spending. And the NRSC piles on the incorrect talking point about "government-run health care. On the Truth-Meter, the NRSC’s claim rates as False.” [Cleveland Plain Dealer, Politifact, 06/09/11]

ROMNEY AND RYAN VOW TO REPEAL THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT WHICH COULD BRING MEDICARE CLOSER TO INSOLVENCY

Romney: “If I’m President, I Will Repeal Obamacare, And I’ll Kill It Dead On Its First Day.” [Romney town hall, Collinsville, IL, 3/17/12]

New York Times Editorial: “The Affordable Care Act Helped Push Back The Insolvency Date By Eight Years, So Repealing The Act Would Actually Bring The Trust Fund Closer To Insolvency, Perhaps In 2016.” [Editorial, New York Times, 8/18/12]

THE ROMNEY-RYAN PLAN WOULD END MEDICARE AS WE KNOW IT – TURNING IT INTO A VOUCHER SYSTEM…

Nw York Magazine’s Jonathan Chait: President Obama’s Argument That Romney Would “End Medicare As We Know It” Is “Undeniably True.” “Today President Obama talks Medicare in Florida and argues that Mitt Romney will ‘end Medicare as we know it.’ The claim is undeniably true, though keep in mind that ‘as we know it’ is a fairly elastic term.” [Jonathan Chait, New York Magazine, 7/19/12]

Romney Adviser Tara Wall Said Romney And Ryan “Are Certainly 100% On The Same Page And On The Same Path Relative To Saying That We Have To Reform Medicare, Offering Options Like Vouchers.” [CNN Newsroom, CNN, 8/14/12]

Romney: “Paul Ryan And My Plan For Medicare I Think Is The Same, If Not Identical It's Probably Close To Identical.” [WBAY (Green Bay, WI), 8/15/12]

• Bloomberg: “Ryan’s Budget Bill Also Would End Traditional Medicare By Capping Spending And Offer Vouchers To Buy Private Insurance.” [Bloomberg, 8/13/12]

• Romney’s Medicare Plan: “Medicare Is Reformed As A Premium Support System, Meaning That Existing Spending Is Repackaged As A Fixed-Amount Benefit To Each Senior That He Or She Can Use To Purchase An Insurance Plan.” [Romney Press Release, Spending Plan – “Cut The Spending,” 11/4/11]

• Reuters: “Ryan's Plan Calls For An End To The Guaranteed Benefit In Medicare And Replaces It With A System That Would Give Vouchers To Recipients To Pay For Health Insurance.” [Reuters, 8/12/12]

…WHICH WOULD SHIFT MORE COSTS ON TO SENIORS AND INCREASES COSTS BY MORE THAN $6,000 EACH YEAR

Los Angeles Times Headline: “Seniors Would Pay The Price Of Ryan’s Plan To Overhaul Medicare.” [Los Angeles Times, 8/13/12]

Los Angeles Times: Under The Ryan Budget “Seniors Would End Up Paying Almost Twice As Much Out Of Their Own Pockets.” [Los Angeles Times, 4/7/11]

New York Times Editorial: Ryan’s Plan Would Turn Medicare Into A Voucher System And “Would Leave Older Americans On Average With $6,400 In Extra Costs By 2022, According To The Congressional Budget Office.” “Most voters know little about Mr. Ryan. Those who have heard of him are probably most familiar with his Medicare plan, which would turn the program into a voucher system that would pay beneficiaries a fixed amount for their medical care, leaving them on their own if the voucher did not cover their costs. This notion so alarmed the public last year that Mr. Ryan was forced to backtrack and leave the existing Medicare system as an option. Even so, the plan would leave older Americans on average with $6,400 in extra costs by 2022, according to the Congressional Budget Office.” [Editorial, New York Times, 8/13/12]

• Center On Budget And Policy Priorities: Under Ryan’s Plan, Seniors On Medicare Would Pay $6,350 More In Out-Of-Pocket Costs By 2022. [Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, Off the Charts blog, 4/8/11]

Harvard’s David Cutler: Even Analyzed, “Conservatively,” A Voucher Plan Like Romney’s Could Increases Costs By $6,800 “For A Person Reaching Eligibility Age In 2030.” “In 2011, CBO released an analysis of Ryan’s first premium support plan, which replaced traditional Medicare with vouchers that seniors would use to help pay for private insurance.  The CBO found that it would cost private plans 39% more than traditional Medicare to deliver the same services. There were two reasons for this: first, private plans have higher administrative costs (including profits), and second they have less bargaining power and therefore would need to pay higher rates to providers. That 39% works out to an extra $6,400 a year for a typical 65 year old in 2030. Under the new premium support plan, which our paper analyzed, all new retirees receive a voucher that they can use to buy coverage from a private plan or from traditional Medicare. Because traditional Medicare is still an option, the erosion of bargaining power under the new Romney-Ryan plan is less immediate. Still, it is there. Anything that moves a significant share of people out of traditional Medicare will mean that Medicare has to pay more to ensure access. Conservatively, we estimated that the total extra costs to care for seniors in the future would be half what CBO estimated – 19.5% rather than 39% – and that effect would take 10 years to phase in. Adding these amounts over expected lifetimes yields the numbers we reported in our previous analysis. To show what this implies on an annual basis, we divide the increase in real costs by years of life remaining as of the age of Medicare eligibility.  Figure 3 shows the results.  The additional costs are $3,200 annually for a person reaching eligibility age in 2023, $6,800 annually for a person reaching eligibility age in 2030, $12,000 annually for a person reaching eligibility age in 2040, and $17,800 annually for a person reaching eligibility age in 2050.” [David Cutler, A Follow-Up on the Analysis of the Romney-Ryan Medicare Plan, 10/2/12]

• Harvard’s David Cutler: “Even Under The Revised Voucher Proposal, The Additional Cost To Enroll In Medicare For The Vast Bulk Of People Will Be $6,000 Annually Or More.” [David Cutler, A Follow-Up on the Analysis of the Romney-Ryan Medicare Plan, 10/2/12]

ROMNEY VOWED TO DO AWAY WITH THE $716 BILLION MEDICARE SAVINGS THAT WERE INCLUDED IN THE RYAN BUDGET ROMNEY CALLED “MARVELOUS”

Romney: “The President's Cutting $716 Billion From Current Medicare. I Disagree With That. I'd Put Those Dollars Back Into Medicare.” [60 Minutes, CBS, 9/23/12]

Romney “Papers Over” The Important Fact That “Ryan’s Budget Blueprints — Which Republicans Overwhelmingly Voted For In 2011 And 2012 — Includes The Same [Medicare] Cuts He’s Slamming.” “‘There’s only one president that I know of in history that robbed Medicare — $716 billion to pay for a new risky program of his own that we call Obamacare,’ Romney said in a CBS interview Sunday evening.  The claim is central to Romney’s strategy of deflecting attacks on his vice presidential pick’s plan to remake Medicare. But it papers over important facts, one of which is Ryan’s budget blueprints — which Republicans overwhelmingly voted for in 2011 and 2012 — includes the same cuts he’s slamming.” [Talking Points Memo, 8/13/12]

Associated Press’s Kasie Hunt Tweet: “Romney, 3/28:‘I Think It’d Be Marvelous If The Senate Were To Pick Up Paul Ryan’s Budget And To Adopt It And Pass It Along To The President’” [@kasie, Twitter, 4/3/12]

 

 

Mitt Romney has no credibility when it comes to reducing the deficit. The truth is that President Obama has already signed $1 trillion of deficit reduction into law as part of a plan to reduce the deficit by more than $4 trillion while asking the wealthiest Americans to pay their fair share and investing in an economy built to last. Romney refuses to ask for a penny more from the wealthy – even pledging to reject a deal including 10 dollars in spending cuts for every 1 dollar of new revenue – and would have to raise middle class taxes or explode the deficit in order to pay for his $250,000 tax cuts for multi-millionaires and increased defense spending.

PRESIDENT OBAMA HAS A BALANCED PLAN TO REDUCE THE DEFICIT BY MORE THAN $4 TRILLION OVER THE NEXT DECADE, WHILE ASKING THE WEALTHY TO PAY THEIR FAIR SHARE AND INVEST IN AN ECONOMY BUILT TO LAST

Center On Budget And Policy Priorities: The President Signed The Budget Control Act, Which Included More Than $1 Trillion In Deficit Reduction And Will Cut Non-Defense Discretionary Spending To Its Lowest Level As A Share Of The Economy Since 1962. “Two-fifths of the $1.5 trillion in savings from cutting and capping funding for discretionary programs comes from defense, while the other three-fifths comes from reductions in domestic and international programs. These reductions will shrink non-defense discretionary spending to its lowest level on record as a share of GDP, with data going back to 1962. The $1.5 trillion in reductions in discretionary spending also will produce lower interest payments on the debt. The interest savings amount to about $250 billion, bringing the total deficit reduction achieved to date to more than $1.7 trillion.” [Center On Budget And Policy Priorities, 9/25/12]

Center On Budget And Policy Priorities: President Obama’s Budget Would Stabilize The Debt Over The Coming Decade Through “A Balanced Combination Of Spending Cuts And Revenue Increases.”  “If Congress enacted the Obama budget in full and its economic assumptions proved correct, the debt would stabilize over the coming decade although, as the White House acknowledges, policymakers would have to subsequently enact significant further deficit reduction to keep the debt stable in future decades. The budget either achieves or approaches this key fiscal target for the coming decade with several trillion dollars in deficit reduction, through a balanced combination of spending cuts and revenue increases.” [Center On Budget And Policy Priorities, 2/16/12]

The President’s Budget, Which Incorporates Deficit Reduction Enacted In 2011, Would Cut The Deficit By More Than $4 Trillion Over The Next Decade. “That is why in this Budget, the President again has put forward a plan that will, together with the deficit reduction enacted last year, cut the deficit by more than $4 trillion over the next decade. This would put our Nation on the right course toward a level of deficits of below 3 percent of GDP by the end of the decade.” [White House Office Of Management And Budget, February 2012]

President Obama Proposed Eliminating Special Tax Breaks And Loopholes For Oil And Gas Companies And The Very Wealthy As Well As Ending The Bush Tax Cuts For Families Making More Than $250,000 A Year. “In the Budget, I reiterate my opposition to permanently extending the Bush tax cuts for families making more than $250,000 a year and my opposition to a more generous estate tax than we had in 2009 benefiting only the very largest estates. These policies were unfair and unaffordable when they were passed, and they remain so today. I will push for their expiration in the coming year. I also propose to eliminate special tax breaks for oil and gas companies; preferred treatment for the purchase of corporate jets; tax rules that give a larger percentage deduction to the wealthiest two percent than to middle-class families for itemized deductions; and a loophole that allows some of the wealthiest money managers in the country to pay only 15 percent tax on the millions of dollars they earn. And I support tax reform that observes the “Buffett Rule” that no household making more than $1 million annually should pay a smaller share of its income taxes than middle-class families pay.” [FY2013 Budget Message Of The President, February 2012]

The President’s FY2013 Budget Calls For Investment In Infrastructure, Education, And Manufacturing Research While Keeping Discretionary Spending Flat. “President Obama will call for new spending on infrastructure, education and manufacturing research, as well as higher taxes on top earners… Officials said the budget would abide by spending caps set by Congress in the August budget deal, keeping discretionary spending levels essentially flat in fiscal 2013. Over the decade, discretionary spending would drop from 8.7% of gross domestic product to 5%, officials said.” [Los Angeles Times, 2/10/12]

ACCORDING TO TREASURY ANALYSIS BASED ON CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE DATA, ABOUT 90 PERCENT THE SHIFT FROM SURPLUSES TO DEFICITS BETWEEN 2001 AND 2011 IS ATTRIBUTABLE BUSH ADMINISTRATION POLICIES AND THE EFFECTS OF THE RECESSION

Fifty Nine Percent Of The Shift From Surplus To Deficit By 2011 Is Directly Attributable To Bush Administration Policies And Twenty Nine Is Due To Updated Economic And Demographic Shifts, While Only 12 Percent Is Attributable To Obama Administration Policies. According to the Department of Treasury, in January 2001, CBO projected cumulative surpluses would total $5.9 trillion through 2011. Instead, cumulative deficits have totaled $6 trillion. A U.S. treasury analysis based on CBO data shows that fifty-nine percent of the shift from surpluses to deficits is attributable to Bush administration policies including Bush-era tax cuts, the wars in Iran and Afghanistan, changes to Medicare Part D, and other spending. Twenty nine percent of the shift from surpluses to deficits is attributable to conditions unrelated to legislation, including updated economic and demographic projections. Twelve percent is attributable to Obama administration policies, including the Recovery Act, the December 2010 tax law, and other spending and tax cuts. [U.S. Department Of Treasury Calculations Based On Congressional Budget Office Data, U.S. Department Of Treasury, 2/19/12]

• In January 2001, The Congressional Budget Office Projected Cumulative Surpluses Would Total $5.6 Trillion Through 2011, But Instead, Cumulative Deficits Have Totaled $6 Trillion—A Difference Of Approximately $11.9 Trillion. [U.S. Department Of Treasury Calculations Based On Congressional Budget Office Data, U.S. Department Of Treasury, 2/19/12]

• Bush Administration Policies Contributed $7 Trillion To The Shift From Surpluses To Deficits Between January 2001 And August 2011. According to the Department of Treasury, tax cuts signed into law under President George W. Bush added $3 trillion, wars in Iraq and Afghanistan added $1.4 trillion, Medicare Part D added $300 billion, and other spending added $2.3 trillion. [U.S. Department Of Treasury Calculations Based On Congressional Budget Office Data, U.S. Department Of Treasury, 2/19/12]

• Obama Administration Policies Contributed $1.4 Trillion To The Shift From Surpluses To Deficits Between January 2001 And August 2011. According to the Department Of Treasury, the Recovery Act added $800 billion, the December 2010 tax law added $250 billion, and other spending and tax cuts added $410 billion. Note that these totals only reflect effects of policies, including temporary policies, through 2011. They do not reflect deficit reduction proposed in the President’s FY2013 budget going forward. [U.S. Department Of Treasury Calculations Based On Congressional Budget Office Data, U.S. Department Of Treasury, 2/19/12]

• Changes In Economic And Demographic Projections Not Due To Legislation Contributed $3.45 Trillion To The Shift From Surpluses To Deficits Between January 2001 And August 2011. According to the Department Of Treasury, factors that the Congressional Budget Office terms “technical” and “economic,” including all changes not due to the cost of new legislation, including updates to economic and demographic projects, contributed 29 percent, or $3.45 trillion, of the shift from surpluses to deficits between January 2001 and August 2011.” [U.S. Department Of Treasury Calculations Based On Congressional Budget Office Data, U.S. Department Of Treasury, 2/19/12]

ROMNEY PROPOSED $5 TRILLION IN NEW TAX CUTS – WHICH WOULD SHOWER MILLIONAIRES AND BILLIONAIRES WITH EVEN MORE BENEFITS WHILE RAISING TAXES ON THE MIDDLE CLASS – BUT THE ONLY SPECIFICS ROMNEY HAS LAID OUT “WOULD MAKE THE DEFICIT BIGGER, NOT SMALLER, AND ADD TO THE DEBT, NOT SUBTRACT FROM IT”

Center On Budget And Policy Priorities: Romney’s New Tax Cuts Would Cost $4.9 Trillion Over A Decade, On Top Of The Cost Of Extending The Bush Tax Cuts. “The Tax Policy Center estimates that the Romney tax plan would lose about $480 billion in tax revenue in calendar year 2015, beyond the revenues losses inherent in maintaining current policy (such as continuing all of the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts). Over the 2014-2022 period, that implies a total reduction in revenues of about $4.9 trillion, relative to current tax policy.” [Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 5/21/12]

Wall Street Journal: “A New Study Released Wednesday Suggests That Mitt Romney’s Tax Plan Would Benefit The Rich And Hurt The Poor And Middle Class, No Matter How Current Blanks In The Plan Are Filled In.”” [Wall Street Journal, 8/1/12]

Los Angeles Times: “Romney Says He Wants To Balance The Budget Within Four Years, But He Has Not Spelled Out A Plan To Do So.” [Los Angeles Times, 8/27/12]

• Los Angeles Times: Romney Has Only Spoken In Specifics About Plans That “Would Make The Deficit Bigger, Not Smaller, And Add To The Debt, Not Subtract From It.” “Romney says he wants to balance the budget within four years, but he has not spelled out a plan to do so. Instead, most of the plans he has talked about specifically – significant new tax cuts, increased defense spending, no changes in Medicare or Social Security until people now 55 reach retirement age, postponing the automatic spending cuts scheduled to start Jan. 1 – would make the deficit bigger, not smaller,  and add to the debt, not subtract from it.” [Los Angeles Times, 8/27/12]

ROMNEY’S LAID OUT $7 TRILLION IN SPENDING BUT THE ONLY SPECIFICS ROMNEY HAS LAID OUT “WOULD MAKE THE DEFICIT BIGGER, NOT SMALLER, AND ADD TO THE DEBT, NOT SUBTRACT FROM IT”

CBPP: Romney’s New Tax Cuts Would Cost $4.9 Trillion Over A Decade, On Top Of The Cost Of Extending The Bush Tax Cuts. “The Tax Policy Center estimates that the Romney tax plan would lose about $480 billion in tax revenue in calendar year 2015, beyond the revenues losses inherent in maintaining current policy (such as continuing all of the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts). Over the 2014-2022 period, that implies a total reduction in revenues of about $4.9 trillion, relative to current tax policy.” [Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 5/21/12]

Wall Street Journal: “[Romney’s] Defense Spending Plans, Which Could Add Another $2 Trillion To The Budget Over The Next Decade, Further Complicate His Math.”   [Wall Street Journal, 8/13/12]

Los Angeles Times: “Romney Says He Wants To Balance The Budget Within Four Years, But He Has Not Spelled Out A Plan To Do So.” [Los Angeles Times, 8/27/12]

Los Angeles Times: Romney Has Only Spoken In Specifics About Plans That “Would Make The Deficit Bigger, Not Smaller, And Add To The Debt, Not Subtract From It.” “Romney says he wants to balance the budget within four years, but he has not spelled out a plan to do so. Instead, most of the plans he has talked about specifically – significant new tax cuts, increased defense spending, no changes in Medicare or Social Security until people now 55 reach retirement age, postponing the automatic spending cuts scheduled to start Jan. 1 – would make the deficit bigger, not smaller,  and add to the debt, not subtract from it.” [Los Angeles Times, 8/27/12]

EVEN UNDER A FAVORABLE ANALYSIS, ROMNEY’S PLANS COULD INCREASE THE DEBT TO 96% OF GDP – HIGHER THAN UNDER THE PRESIDENT’S PLAN

Committee For A Responsible Federal Budget: Even If Romney Paid For His Tax Cuts, He Would Increase The Debt To 85% Of GDP – And Without A Specific Plan To Pay For Them, Romney Would Increase The Debt To 96% Of GDP. “In our current intermediate-debt scenario, we estimate that Governor Romney’s plans would result in debt levels at about 86 percent of GDP in 2021. Should Romney enact sufficient base broadening – likely including substantial changes to the major itemized deductions and exclusions – so that his entire plan is deficit-neutral to current policy, his debt levels would be at about 85 percent of GDP in 2021. On the other hand, if Governor Romney enacted these additional tax cuts without offsets, his 2021 debt levels would be 96 percent of GDP.” [Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, Primary Numbers: The GOP Candidates and the National Debt, 2/23/12]

• According To The Congressional Budget Office, The President’s Budget Stabilizes The Debt As A Share Of The Economy At 76 Percent. [“An Analysis Of The President’s 2013 Budget,” Congressional Budget Office, Table 2, March 2012]

The Committee For A Responsible Federal Budget’s Debt Analysis Assumed Romney Would Pay For His Increase In Defense Spending In Its Intermediate Scenario. “Governor Romney proposes to put in place a defense spending floor at 4 percent of GDP per year, which is more than we forecast in our realistic baseline… The Romney campaign has stated its commitment to finance these costs through further non-defense savings, so we assume in the low and intermediate-debt scenarios that the costs would be fully offset.” [Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, Primary Numbers: The GOP Candidates and the National Debt, 2/23/12]

 

Tonight, President Obama told the American people why we simply cannot afford Romney’s plan – the same failed policies of the past that crashed our economy and punished the middle class in the first place:

“If you believe that we can cut taxes by 5 trillion-dollar and add 2 trillion-dollar in additional spending that the military is not asking for – 7 trillion-dollars, just to give you a sense, over 10 years that’s more than our entire defense budget – and you think that by closing loopholes arrest deductions for the well to do somehow you will not end up picking up the tab, then Governor Romney’s plan may work for you.  

“But I think math, common sense and our history shows us that’s not a recipe for job growth. Look, we’ve tried this, we’ve tried both approaches. The approach that Governor Romney’s talking about is the same sales pitch that was made in 2001 and 2003. And we ended up with the slowest job growth in 50 years, we ended up moving from surplus to deficits, and it all culminated in the worst financial crisis since the great depression.”

ROMNEY’S ECONOMIC PLAN: DO JUST WHAT GEORGE BUSH DID

Romney Said Of His Economic Plan “The First Thing To Do In A Tough Economy [Just] As George Bush Did When He Was In A Recession.” CHETRY: “Let's talk really quickly about the economy. You had spoken on the stump -- I heard a couple of your speeches. And you said you know what to do. You know how to get the country on a better track. As fears of recession continue to grow, what would be your economic plan?” ROMNEY: “Well, the first thing to do in a tough economy as George Bush did when he was in a recession is to lower the tax rate on middle-income Americans. And for me, what that means is all of the income on savings, the interest, the dividends, and capital gains; I would tax at a zero rate for all middle income American, as people earning under $200,000 a year. Number two, I begin a very aggressive investment program in new technologies related to energy, fuel savings, and the like so we can become free of our dependence on foreign oil. Number four, I'd make sure that we continue to trade around the world. That's good for us. But we're going to have to get other partners to trade in a more fair basis. China, in particular, doesn't follow safety requirements, doesn't protect our patents and our designs and manipulates their currencies such that their products are given a deep discount. That hurts the sales of U.S. products. And finally, I want to invest in technology-related manufacturing in this country. I believe that manufacturing is an important part of America's economic base and we cannot allow it to continue to decline.” [American Morning, CNN, 1/8/08]

Washington Post’s Ezra Klein: “Romney Can’t Explain How His Policies Differ From That Of George W. Bush.” [Ezra Klein, Washington Post, 7/27/12]

ROMNEY PROPOSED $5 TRILLION IN NEW TAX CUTS WHICH WOULD SHOWER MILLIONAIRES AND BILLIONAIRES WITH EVEN MORE BENEFITS WHILE RAISING TAXES ON THE MIDDLE CLASS AND VOWED TO REPEAL WALL STREET REFORM RETURNING TO THE DAYS WERE WALL STREET COULD WRITE ITS OWN RULES

Center On Budget And Policy Priorities: Romney’s New Tax Cuts Would Cost $4.9 Trillion Over A Decade, On Top Of The Cost Of Extending The Bush Tax Cuts. “The Tax Policy Center estimates that the Romney tax plan would lose about $480 billion in tax revenue in calendar year 2015, beyond the revenues losses inherent in maintaining current policy (such as continuing all of the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts). Over the 2014-2022 period, that implies a total reduction in revenues of about $4.9 trillion, relative to current tax policy.” [Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 5/21/12]

Wall Street Journal: “A New Study Released Wednesday Suggests That Mitt Romney’s Tax Plan Would Benefit The Rich And Hurt The Poor And Middle Class, No Matter How Current Blanks In The Plan Are Filled In.”” [Wall Street Journal, 8/1/12]

Reuters Headline: “Romney Tax Plan Helps Rich, Hurts Middle Class-Study.” [Reuters, 8/1/12]

Boston Globe Headline: “Mitt Romney’s Tax Plan Would Offer Big Cuts To Millionaires, Raise Taxes On Middle Class, Brookings Analysts Say.” [Boston Globe, 8/1/12]

Romney Pledge To Repeal Dodd-Frank But Has Been Silent On How He Would Prevent Wall Street From Engaging In The Risky Practices That Helped Cause The 2008 Financial Crisis. “Republican Mitt Romney is pledging, if he is elected president, to repeal the Dodd-Frank financial regulations, a position favored by donors on Wall Street who have sent millions the candidate’s way. But he is nearly silent on how - without the regulation - he would prevent Wall Street from once again engaging in the risky practices that helped cause the 2008 financial crisis.” [Boston Globe, 5/2/12]

• Headline: “Mitt Romney Mum On How To Regulate Big Banks” [Boston Globe, 5/2/12]

DEFENSE SPENDING WOULD SPIKE BY OVER $2 TRILLION UNDER ROMNEY

Headline: “Defense Spending To Spike $2.1 Trillion Under Romney” [CNN, 5/10/12]

Romney Hasn’t Said How He Would Pay For His $2 Trillion Increase In Defense Spending. “Romney, by contrast, has called for increasing active-duty military personnel by 100,000 troops and boosting the nation's fleet. He has also said he would increase defense spending -- by ensuring that the budget would not fall below 4% of the nation's gross domestic product. He has not said, however, how he would pay for that increase, which some analysts project would add more than $2 trillion in government spending over the next decade.” [Los Angeles Times, 5/31/12]

In tonight’s debate, Mitt Romney cited his 5 point economic plan and said that it would help create jobs.  But independent economists have said that Romney’s budget plan could slow the economic recovery and eliminate jobs, while his 5 point plan doesn’t add up.

Here are the facts:

ECONOMISTS SAY ROMNEY’S ECONOMIC POLICY PLANS WOULD “DO MORE HARM IN THE SHORT TERM” AND “PUSH US DEEPER INTO RECESSION AND MAKE THE RECOVERY SLOWER”

Washington Post Headline: “Economists: Romney’s Ideas Wouldn’t Fix Short-Term Crisis, And Could Make Things Worse.”  [Greg Sargent, Washington Post, 6/7/12]

Senior Adviser At Moody’s Analytics Mark Hopkins: Romney’s Policies “Would Do More Harm In The Short Term” And “If We Implemented All Of His Policies, It Would Push Us Deeper Into Recession And Make The Recovery Slower.” Asking whether Romney’s economic policy ideas would create jobs in the short-term: “‘On net, all of these policies would do more harm in the short term,’ added Mark Hopkins, a senior adviser at Moody’s Analytics. ‘If we implemented all of his policies, it would push us deeper into recession and make the recovery slower.’” [Greg Sargent, Washington Post, 6/7/12]

Nobel Prize-Winning Economist Joseph Stiglitz: “The Romney Plan Is Going To Slow Down The Economy, Worsen The Jobs Deficit And Significantly Increase The Likelihood Of A Recession.” [Bloomberg, 6/5/12]

ROMNEY PROMISES ENERGY INDEPENDENCE

REALITY: ROMNEY’S PLAN IS BASED ON OIL DRILLING AND CUTTING OFF INVESTMENTS IN RENEWABLE ENERGY – BUT WE CAN’T DRILL OUR WANT TO ENERGY INDEPENDENCE

Romney Has The “View That The Government Should Cut Off Aid To Renewable Energy.” “Romney’s view that the government should cut off aid to renewable energy marks a reversal for the candidate.” [Washington Post, 6/8/12]

• TIME: “Romney Has Suggested That Wind And Solar Are ‘Imaginary’ Sources Of Energy, But They Can Now Power 15 Million Homes, And Their Industries Employ More Than 300,000 Americans. That’s Real.” “Before President Obama took office, the U.S. had 25 gigawatts of wind power, and the government’s ‘base case’ energy forecast expected 40 GW by 2030. Well, it’s not quite 2030 yet, but we’ve already got 50 GW of wind. We’ve also got about 5 GW of solar, which isn’t much, but is over six times more than we had before Obama. Mitt Romney has suggested that wind and solar are ‘imaginary’ sources of energy, but they can now power 15 million homes, and their industries employ more than 300,000 Americans. That’s real.” [Michael Grunwald, TIME, 8/10/12]

• Romney Would Keep $4 Billion A Year In Tax Incentives And Tax Breaks For Oil And Gas Drilling. Romney’s energy positions include: “Keep tax incentives and tax breaks for oil and gas drilling. These amount to about $4 billion a year.” [Washington Post, 9/11/12]

Washington Post: “Romney’s Plan Spends A Lot Of Time Talking About Drilling” But “Energy Independence Will Require More Than Just Drilling — It Will Also Depend On Efficiency Standards That Romney Has Opposed.” “Energy independence will require more than just drilling — it will also depend on efficiency standards that Romney has opposed. Mitt Romney’s plan spends a lot of time talking about drilling. But it’s worth noting that both the EIA and Citigroup credit the Obama administration’s new fuel-economy standards for cars and light trucks as a major part of America’s lurch toward energy independence. By 2025, the increased CAFE standards are expected to reduce U.S. oil consumption by about 2.2 million barrels per day. Without those rules, energy independence looks nearly impossible. And Romney, for his part, has pledged to overturn those fuel-economy rules.” [Wonk Blog, Washington Post, 8/23/12]

REALITY: PRESIDENT OBAMA’S ALL-OF-THE-ABOVE APPROACH TO ENERGY HAS HELPED BOOST DOMESTIC OIL PRODUCTION AND REDUCE OUR DEPENDENCE ON FOREIGN OIL

President Obama Emphasized The Need For An “All-Out, All-Of-The-Above Strategy That Develops Every Available Source Of American Energy.” “But with only 2 percent of the world’s oil reserves, oil isn’t enough.  This country needs an all-out, all-of-the-above strategy that develops every available source of American energy – a strategy that’s cleaner, cheaper, and full of new jobs.“ [Remarks by the President in State of the Union Address, 1/24/12]

• In The First Eight Months  Of 2012, The United States’ Dependence On Foreign Oil Was At Its Lowest Level In 20 Years. According to the Energy Information Administration, in the first seven months of 2012, the percent of net imports of petroleum as a share of petroleum products supplied averaged 41.9%. According to Energy Information Administration data, this is the lowest level since 1992 when the percent of net petroleum imports as a share of petroleum product supplied was 40.7%. [Calculated from Energy Information Administration data, Monthly Energy Review, September 2012]

• In The First Quarter Of 2012, Domestic Crude Oil Production Is At Its Highest Level In 14 Years. “Strong growth in U.S. crude oil production since the fourth quarter of 2011 is due mainly to higher output from North Dakota, Texas, and federal leases in the Gulf of Mexico, with total U.S. production during the first quarter of 2012 topping 6 million barrels per day (bbl/d) for the first time in 14 years.” [Energy Information Administration, 6/8/12]

• Domestic Production Of Natural Gas Is At An All-Time High. According to Energy Information Administration data, the United States’ marketed production of natural gas was 24,169,613 million cubic in 2011, breaking the previous record of 22,647,549 million cubic feet in 1973.  [Energy Information Administration, 8/31/12]

• Net Electricity Generation From Wind Has More Than Doubled Between 2008 And 2011. In 2008, wind generated 55,363 megawatthours of electricity in the United States. In 2011 the United States produced 119,747 megawatthours of electricity from wind. [Energy Information Administration, Electric Power Monthly, September 2012]

• Net Electricity Generation From Solar Has More Than Doubled Between 2008 And November 2011. In 2008, the United States produced 864 megawatthours of electricity from solar sources. In 2011 the United States produced 1,814 megawatthours of electricity from solar. [Energy Information Administration, Electric Power Monthly, September 2012]

• The Obama Administration Is Implementing A More Than $5 Billion Investment Strategy In Clean Coal Research And Development Which Has Attracted More Than $10 Billion In Private Investment. “Today’s awards are part of a more than $5 billion investment strategy by the Obama Administration in clean coal technologies and R&D. This strategy, which has attracted over $10 billion in additional private capital investment, is designed to accelerate commercial deployment of clean coal technologies – particularly carbon capture and storage (CCS) – and to position the United States as a leader in the global clean energy race.” [Department of Energy Press Release, 6/6/12]

• The Obama Administration Issued A Conditional Loan Guarantee For The Construction Of The First Nuclear Power Plant In The United States In Decades, Which Will Provide Enough Energy For 1.4 Million People. From a Department of Energy press release: “The Energy Department and the Obama Administration are committed to restarting America’s nuclear industry to create new jobs and provide clean power to America’s communities. As part of these efforts, the Energy Department has awarded conditional loan guarantees to support the construction of the first U.S. nuclear reactors in more than three decades. The project, located at the Vogtle nuclear power plant in Burke, Georgia, will bring two new Westinghouse AP1000 reactors online -- supporting 3,500 construction jobs and 800 permanent jobs along with providing clean electricity to nearly 1.4 million people.” [Department of Energy, 12/20/11]

 

ROMNEY PROMISES TO GET TRADE TO WORK WITH A “CRACK DOWN ON CHINA WHEN THE CHEAT”

 

REALITY: PRESIDENT OBAMA HAS BROUGHT TRADE CASES AGAINST CHINA AT TWICE THE RATE OF HIS PREDECESSOR

 

President Obama Has Brought Trade Cases Against China At Twice The Rate Of His Predecessor. The Obama Administration has filed 8  complaints against China with the World Trade Organization. Under the eight years of the Bush Administration, the U.S. filed 7 complaints against China with the WTO. [WTO List Of Disputes Cases, Accessed 9/15/12; Cleveland Plain Dealer, 9/16/12]

 

The Obama Administration Has Brought A Total Of Nine Trade Cases Against China. The Obama Administration has filed 9 trade cases against China, including action to combat a surge of imported Chinese tires. [WTO List Of Disputes Cases, Accessed 9/17/12; MarketWatch, 9/11/09]

 

REALITY: PRESIDENT OBAMA IMPOSED STIFF TARIFFS ON CHINESE TIRES TO SAVE OVER A THOUSAND AMERICAN JOBS AND STAND UP FOR WORKERS IN AN INDUSTRY THAT EMPLOYS THOUSANDS IN OHIO

 

President Obama Imposed Stiff Tariffs On Chinese-Made Tires, For The First Time Imposing Safeguard Provisions To Protect A US Industry From Chinese Competition.   “The Obama administration will impose stiff tariffs on imports of Chinese-made tires after finding that a surge of imports has disrupted the U.S. domestic market… It is the first time the U.S. government has imposed special ‘safeguard’ provisions to protect a U.S. industry from Chinese competition.”  [MarketWatch, 9/11/09]

 

The International Trade Commission Estimated That Tariffs On Chinese Tires Would Save The Equivalent Of Approximately 1,200 American Jobs. “Commissioner Lane notes that in the first year of relief, the average of the outcomes from the COMPAS Model shows that the domestic industry’s domestic sales are likely to increase by approximately 6.8 million units on average. Although the model does not specifically project the impact of such an  increase in output on employment, at the highest level of productivity reflected in the period of investigation 6.8 million tires would equate to over 2.3 million additional hours for production related workers in the industry. While these hours may be a combination of additional hours for existing employees and new jobs, they nevertheless equate to nearly 1,200 jobs on a full-time basis.” [International Trade Commission Report, July 2009]

 

REALITY: ROMNEY REPEATEDLY CRITICIZED PRESIDENT OBAMA FOR IMPOSING TARIFFS ON CHINESE TIRES CALLING IT “PROTECTIONISM” AND “BAD FOR THE NATION AND OUR WORKERS”

 

Romney Attacked Obama’s Chinese Tire Tariffs As “Bad For The Nation And Our Workers” And Called It “Protectionism.” “President Obama’s action to defend American tire companies from foreign competition may make good politics by repaying unions for their support of his campaign, but it is decidedly bad for the nation and our workers. Protectionism stifles productivity.” [Romney, No Apology: Case for American Greatness, Page 119 (audio available), released 3/2/10]

 

Romney’s Campaign Attacked President Obama For Taking “Protectionist Action Against China” Through Chinese Tire Tariffs. Romney For President memo by policy director Lanhee Chen: “What message does it send the Chinese when President Obama takes protectionist action against China on behalf of Big Labor, undermining free trade principles for political gain? The Obama campaign has repeatedly held out its Section 421 action against Chinese tires as an example of President Obama’s supposedly tough China policy.” [Lanhee Chen Memo On China & Trade, Romney For President, 7/10/12]

 

Romney’s Campaign Released A Statement Calling The President’s Tire Tariff “Misguided.”  [Romney For President, Press Release, 9/26/12]

 

ROMNEY PROMISES TO IMPROVE EDUCATION

 

THE ROMNEY-RYAN BUDGET COULD CUT MORE THAN $115 BILLION FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION OVER THE NEXT DECADE…

 

If Cuts Were Applied Across The Board, The Ryan Budget Would Slash Education, “The Department Of Education Would Be Cut By More Than $115 Billion Over A Decade.” “Yesterday, House Republicans released their budget resolution for FY 2013… On top of the roughly $1 trillion in cuts in the Budget Control Act, it would be difficult to overstate the radicalism of the domestic cuts proposed by the House budget resolution. In 2013, it would cut annual non-defense funding by 5 percent. By 2014, the resolution would cut this funding by 19 percent in purely nominal terms… The Department of Education would be cut by more than $115 billion over a decade.” [Jeff Zients, Acting Director of the Office of Management and Budget, WH.gov, 3/21/12]

 

• If Cuts Were Applied Across The Board, The Ryan Budget Would Cut Elementary And Secondary Education Funding By $4.8 Billion. According to the White House, cuts to elementary and secondary education, special education funding would total $4,847,000,000 under the Ryan Budget. [White House, 4/6/12]

 

ROMNEY’S PLAN: VOUCHERIZE AMERICA’S PUBLIC EDUCATION SYSTEM WHILE OFFERING NO PLAN TO FIX FAILING PUBLIC SCHOOLS

                                           

Headline: “Mitt Romney's Voucher-Like Education Overhaul” [Associated Press, 5/23/12]

 

Romney Proposed A “Voucher-Style System” For Education. “Shifting from the economy to education, Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney was proposing a voucher-style system that could significantly alter the public school system and revive the debate over school choice.” [Associated Press, 5/23/12]

 

Romney’s Domestic Policy Director Oren Cass Acknowledged That Under Romney’s Plan Schools Would Not Be Able To Accommodate Every Student Who Wants To Attend Them. “On a conference call with reporters before his speech, Romney's Domestic Policy Director Oren Cass acknowledged that schools would not always be able to take every child who wants to attend them under the plan. High-performing charter schools around the country often hold lotteries to admit only a fraction of students who apply, and there's reason to believe that the best school in any given area will have to turn away some low-income students who want to attend with their voucher. But Cass said Romney would also encourage more quality charter schools to start up to offer more choices.” [ABC News, 5/23/12]

 

• “High-Performing Charter Schools Around The Country Often Hold Lotteries To Admit Only A Fraction Of Students Who Apply, And There's Reason To Believe That The Best School In Any Given Area Will Have To Turn Away Some Low-Income Students Who Want To Attend With Their Voucher.”  [ABC News, 5/23/12]

 

Romney’s Education Plan Says That Students Should Be Allowed To Escape Failing Public Schools By Using Federal Dollars To Pay For Private Schools, Online Schools And Other Alternative Settings. “Calling it a ‘national education emergency,’ Mitt Romney said Wednesday that poor and disabled children should be allowed to escape failing public schools by using federal dollars to pay for private schools, online schools and other alternative settings.” [Washington Post, 5/23/12]

 

Former Education Secretary To George W. Bush Margaret Spellings Said She Stopped Advising Romney After He “Rejected Strong Federal Accountability Measures” Because Vouchers And Choice As Drivers Of Accountability Are “Untried And Untested.” “One notable skeptic is Margaret Spellings, a former education secretary under Mr. Bush, who this year was an informal adviser to Mr. Romney. She said she withdrew once the candidate rejected strong federal accountability measures.  ‘I have long supported and defended and believe in a muscular federal role on school accountability,’ Ms. Spellings said. ‘Vouchers and choice as the drivers of accountability — obviously that’s untried and untested.’” [New York Times, 6/11/12]

 

REALITY: ROMNEY WOULD RETURN THE MIDDLE MAN TO STUDENT LOANS AND SLASH FUNDING FOR PELL GRANTS

 

If Cuts Were Applied Across The Board, The Ryan Budget Would Slash Education, Meaning “9.6 Million Students Would See Their Pell Grants Fall By More Than $1000 In 2014, And, Over The Next Decade, Over One Million Students Would Lose Support Altogether.” “Yesterday, House Republicans released their budget resolution for FY 2013… On top of the roughly $1 trillion in cuts in the Budget Control Act, it would be difficult to overstate the radicalism of the domestic cuts proposed by the House budget resolution. In 2013, it would cut annual non-defense funding by 5 percent. By 2014, the resolution would cut this funding by 19 percent in purely nominal terms… 9.6 million students would see their Pell Grants fall by more than $1000 in 2014, and, over the next decade, over one million students would lose support altogether.” [Jeff Zients, Acting Director of the Office of Management and Budget, WH.gov, 3/21/12]

 

• Steve Benen: “A Romney Administration Will Cut Pell Grants, Make It Harder To Get Student Loans, And Encourage Students Who Struggle With Tuition Costs To "Shop Around" Until They Can Find A College They Can Afford.”  “Yesterday, Mitt Romney unveiled a new education agenda, which vows to bring the middleman back. … Sure, Obama's reforms save taxpayer money and help more young people go to college, but by streamlining the process, Democrats have cut into bank profits -- and that can't stand.  Taken together, it's quite a pitch Romney has to make to young adults and their families: a Romney administration will cut Pell Grants, make it harder to get student loans, and encourage students who struggle with tuition costs to "shop around" until they can find a college they can afford.”  [Steve Benen, MSNBC, 5/24/12]

Romney’s Proposal To Repeal President Obama’s Overhaul To The Federal Student Loan Program Would Be “A Return To Bank-Based Student Lending.” “The presumed Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney pledged Wednesday that, if elected, he would reshape or do away with two major Obama administration higher education policy initiatives: the overhaul of the federal student loan program and tighter regulations on for-profit colleges…He also calls for a return to bank-based student lending, which was phased out beginning in 2010 as part of the health care overhaul.” [Inside Higher Ed, 5/24/12]

• Steve Benen: Romney’s Education Agenda “Vows To Bring The Middleman Back” To The Student-Loan System. “One of the overlooked accomplishments of President Obama's term is the reform of the student-loan system -- an effort that was decades in the making, but had been blocked by Republicans and bank lobbyists until 2010. Under the old system, the student-loan industry received billions in taxpayer subsidies to provide a service the government could perform for less. As Rachel explained on the show a month ago, in 2010, Democrats removed the middleman, streamlined the process, saved taxpayers a ton of money, and helped more young people get college degrees. Yesterday, Mitt Romney unveiled a new education agenda, which vows to bring the middleman back.” [Steve Benen, MSNBC, 5/24/12]

 

ROMNEY CALLED PRESIDENT OBAMA “OUT OF TOUCH” FOR ENCOURAGING PEOPLE TO PURSUE MANUFACTURING JOBS

 

Romney Said “The President Seems To Be Out Of Touch” For Encouraging Young People To Pursue Manufacturing Jobs. “At the stop in Detroit, Romney said Obama showed he was ‘out of touch’ this week when he encouraged young people to pursue manufacturing jobs. ‘Last month, 5,000 people lost their jobs in manufacturing,’ Romney said. ‘The president seems to be out of touch.’” [Detroit News, 6/9/11]

 

Wall Street Journal: Romney “Appeared To Scoff… At The Notion Of Manufacturing As A Job Engine For The Future.”  [Wall Street Journal, 6/24/11]

 

Wall Street Journal: Romney “Twice This Month Said That The President Was Out Of Touch For Suggesting Young People Go Into Manufacturing” But “We Have Had Manufacturing Growth That Rivals The Levels Of The 1980s.”  Jonathan Weisman said in an interview on the manufacturing industry: “Actually, Obama sees and opening here because Mitt Romney, twice this month said that the president was ‘out of touch’ for suggesting young people go into manufacturing, go into community college to study, different kind of high-end manufacturing techniques and if fact if you look at the sort of sluggish recovery of jobs, manufacturing is one of the bright spots. Not particularly beaming but we have had good strong manufacturing growth. We have had manufacturing growth that rivals the levels of the 1980s.” [News Hub, Wall Street Journal, 6/24/11] 

ROMNEY PROMISES TO CUT FEDERAL SPENDING

 

REALITY: ROMNEY PROPOSED $5 TRILLION IN NEW TAX CUTS BUT THE ONLY SPECIFICS ROMNEY HAS LAID OUT “WOULD MAKE THE DEFICIT BIGGER, NOT SMALLER, AND ADD TO THE DEBT, NOT SUBTRACT FROM IT”

 

Los Angeles Times: “Romney Says He Wants To Balance The Budget Within Four Years, But He Has Not Spelled Out A Plan To Do So.” [Los Angeles Times, 8/27/12]

• Los Angeles Times: Romney Has Only Spoken In Specifics About Plans That “Would Make The Deficit Bigger, Not Smaller, And Add To The Debt, Not Subtract From It.” “Romney says he wants to balance the budget within four years, but he has not spelled out a plan to do so. Instead, most of the plans he has talked about specifically – significant new tax cuts, increased defense spending, no changes in Medicare or Social Security until people now 55 reach retirement age, postponing the automatic spending cuts scheduled to start Jan. 1 – would make the deficit bigger, not smaller,  and add to the debt, not subtract from it.” [Los Angeles Times, 8/27/12]

Center On Budget And Policy Priorities: Romney’s New Tax Cuts Would Cost $4.9 Trillion Over A Decade, On Top Of The Cost Of Extending The Bush Tax Cuts. “The Tax Policy Center estimates that the Romney tax plan would lose about $480 billion in tax revenue in calendar year 2015, beyond the revenues losses inherent in maintaining current policy (such as continuing all of the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts). Over the 2014-2022 period, that implies a total reduction in revenues of about $4.9 trillion, relative to current tax policy.” [Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 5/21/12]

• Los Angeles Times: Romney “Promises To Cut Taxes, But Fails To Explain How He’d Pay For The Move Without Ballooning The Federal Deficit.” [Los Angeles Times, 7/5/12]

 

• Washington Post Headline: “Romney Confirms His Tax Cuts Won’t Be Paid For.” [Greg Sargent , Washington Post, 8/3/12]

 

REALITY: ROMNEY HAS SET ARBITRARY GOALS FOR DEFENSE SPENDING THAT WOULD COST OVER $2 TRILLION

Headline: “Defense Spending To Spike $2.1 Trillion Under Romney” [CNN, 5/10/12]

Romney Hasn’t Said How He Would Pay For His $2 Trillion Increase In Defense Spending. “Romney, by contrast, has called for increasing active-duty military personnel by 100,000 troops and boosting the nation's fleet. He has also said he would increase defense spending -- by ensuring that the budget would not fall below 4% of the nation's gross domestic product. He has not said, however, how he would pay for that increase, which some analysts project would add more than $2 trillion in government spending over the next decade.” [Los Angeles Times, 5/31/12]

Brookings Institution’s Peter Singer: Romney’s Budget Proposal Which Included Additional Defense Spending Did Not “Reflect Fiscal Sanity.” “Romney's plan to spend more at the Pentagon adds yet another layer of complexity to a set of proposals that would remake the fiscal landscape. Romney has proposed a slew of tax cuts, and plans to cap federal spending at 20% of GDP. But in both cases, the Romney campaign hasn't fully explained how those provisions will be paid for. The lack of detail means that Romney's claim of moving toward a balanced budget requires a great deal of trust.  … Other budget experts expressed similar concerns about Romney's proposal, including Peter Singer, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, who said the plan for additional spending does not ‘reflect fiscal reality.’” [CNN, 5/10/12]

Defense News: “Romney Advisers Acknowledge That Today’s Fiscal Reality Could Make It Difficult To Realize The 4 Percent Goal.” [Defense News, 6/17/12]

Defense Budget Analyst, Todd Harrison: Setting Defense Spending At 4% Of GDP Is Arbitrary – Defense Spending Should Be Based On Need And Not The Size Of The Economy. “For [senior fellow for defense budget studies at the nonpartisan Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, Todd] Harrison, setting defense spending at 4 percent of GDP isn’t helpful because it’s an arbitrary standard, he said… Over the past 20 years, the base defense budget has averaged 3.3 percent of GDP, according to Harrison said. ‘What you spend on defense really should be a function of your security needs, and what you think the threat environment is and what you think you need to protect the country,’ he said. ‘It shouldn’t be a formula based on the size of your economy.’” [Defense News, 6/17/12]

 ROMNEY PROMISES TO CUT TAXES FOR SMALL BUSINESSES

REALITY: THE ROMNEY-RYAN TAX HIKE COULD RAISE TAXES FOR 30 MILLION SMALL BUSINESS OWNERS

If Romney’s Tax Plan Was Paid For, Taxpayers Making Less Than $200,000 Would See Average Tax Increases. [Tax Policy Center, On The Distributional Effects Of Base-Broadening Income Tax Reform, p. 16, 8/1/12]

 

• Politifact: “To Make Romney’s Plan Revenue Neutral,” Those Making Less Than $200,000 Would “See Outright Tax Increases.” “But to make Romney's plan revenue neutral, deductions would also have to be removed for people with incomes below $200,000, and the effects of that would be significant, the study found. In fact, the elimination of the deductions would mean outright tax increases for everyone with incomes below $200,000. People with taxable income between $50,000 and $75,000, for example, would see an average net tax increase of $641. They’d save $984 from Romney's rate cut, but lose $2,672 in write-offs.” [Politifact, 8/3/12]

 Tax Policy Center: Nearly 30 Million Americans With Business Income Earn Less Than $200,000. According to Tax Policy Center data on tax units with business income, there are: 2,762,000 that earn less than $10,000; 3,089,000 that earn between $10,000 and $20,000; 2,983,000 that earn between $20,000 and $30,000; 2,904,000 that earn between $30,000 and $40,000; 2,558,000 that earn between $40,000 and $50,000; 4,796,000 that earn between $50,000 and $75,000; 3,861,000 that earn between $75,000 and $100,000; and 6,568,000 that make between $100,000 and $200,000. In total, there are 29,522,000 tax units with business income that earn less than $200,000. [Tax Policy Center, T11-0148 - Baseline Distribution of Business Income, by Cash Income Level; Current Law, 2011, 6/7/11]

REALITY: THE ROMNEY-RYAN BUDGET COULD CUT SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION FUNDING BY 19% – A CUT OF $170 MILLION

The Ryan Budget Would Cut Domestic Discretionary Spending By 19 Percent, And “Since The House Has Refused To Specify What Would Be Cut, We Consider The Impacts If The Cuts Are Distributed Equally Across The Budget.” “Yesterday, House Republicans released their budget resolution for FY 2013… On top of the roughly $1 trillion in cuts in the Budget Control Act, it would be difficult to overstate the radicalism of the domestic cuts proposed by the House budget resolution.  In 2013, it would cut annual non-defense funding by 5 percent.  By 2014, the resolution would cut this funding by 19 percent in purely nominal terms. Over a decade, the resolution would cut over $1 trillion in non-defense spending on top of the reductions the President has already signed into law.  The cuts in non-defense discretionary funding are nearly three times as deep as the cuts under the so-called sequester — cuts that we and most objective analysts have always regarded as an unwise and unacceptable. What would it all mean? The Budget doesn’t say.  In fact, the Budget resolution includes a magic asterisk — or, in more technical parlance, an ‘allowance’— for $897 billion in unspecified cuts. But what could the resolution mean?  Since the House has refused to specify what would be cut, we consider the impacts if the cuts are distributed equally across the Budget. The result would be that.” [Jeff Zients, Acting Director of the Office of Management and Budget, WH.gov, 3/21/12]

2012: The Enacted Small Business Administration Budget Was $900 Million. [Fiscal year 2013 Budget, Office of Management & Budget, p. 240]

REALITY: ROMNEY WOULD REPEAL OBAMACARE, AND WITH IT THE TAX CUTS FOR SMALL BUSINESS

Romney: “If I’m President, I Will Repeal Obamacare, And I’ll Kill It Dead On Its First Day.” [Romney town hall, Collinsville, IL, 3/17/12]

 

Romney: “Friday Is The Second Anniversary Of Obamacare. It Is Past Time To Abolish The Program, Root And Branch.” [Mitt Romney Op-Ed, USA Today, 3/22/12]

 

The Affordable Care Act Provides Tax Credits To Help Small Business Owners Afford The Cost Of Covering Their Employees And Is Targeted To Businesses With Low- And Moderate-Income Workers. “This new credit helps small businesses and small tax-exempt organizations afford the cost of covering their employees and is specifically targeted for those with low- and moderate-income workers. The credit is designed to encourage small employers to offer health insurance coverage for the first time or maintain coverage they already have. In general, the credit is available to small employers that pay at least half the cost of single coverage for their employees.” [IRS Fact Sheet, 4/19/2012]

 The Small Business Health Care Credit Currently Covers Up To 35 Percent Of Small Business’s Health Insurance Costs And Will Increase To Cover Up To 50 Percent In 2014. “For tax years 2010 through 2013, the maximum credit is 35 percent for small business employers and 25 percent for small tax-exempt employers such as charities. An enhanced version of the credit will be effective beginning Jan. 1, 2014. Additional information about the enhanced version will be added to IRS.gov as it becomes available. In general, on Jan. 1, 2014, the rate will increase to 50 percent and 35 percent, respectively.” [IRS Fact Sheet, 2/14/2012]

The President’s Tax Reform Framework Proposes Expanding The Health Care Tax Credit Created In The Affordable Care Act To Businesses With Up To 50 Workers. “Reform and expand the health insurance tax credit for small businesses. This credit, created in the Affordable Care Act, helps small businesses afford the cost of health insurance. This reform would allow small businesses with up to 50 workers to qualify for the credit (up from 25), provide a more generous phase-out schedule, and substantially simplify and streamline the tax credit’s rules.” [The President’s Framework For Corporate Tax Reform, February 2012]

 

 

Despite Mitt Romney’s claims that his plan would make North America energy independent, the truth is that Romney’s energy plan was written by Big Oil, focuses principally on oil drilling, and would maintain $4 billion in subsidies for Romney’s Big Oil friends, while not getting us to the energy independence he promises. He cannot achieve energy independence by 2020 while opposing President Obama’s fuel efficiency standards and other clean energy investments. Mitt Romney would walk away from the critical investments in renewable and incentives – like the wind production tax credit – that have helped make us, under President Obama’s leadership, the least dependent on foreign oil that we’ve been in 20 years, and will help get us to cut our net oil imports in half by 2020.

ROMNEY’S ENERGY PLAN WAS WRITTEN BY BIG OIL, FOCUSES ON OIL DRILLING AND WOULD MAINTAIN SUBSIDIES FOR ROMNEY’S FRIENDS IN THE OIL INDUSTRY

Romney’s Energy Plan “Is Basically All About Oil, Coal And Gas.”  “No sooner had Mitt Romney released his long-awaited energy policy Aug. 23 than a small army of reporters and pundits started drilling into the details and coming up with barely a kilowatt of vision or substance. The plan is basically all about oil, coal and gas.” [K Kaufmann, Desert Sun, 9/1/12]

A Romney Aide Revealed The Energy Plan Had Been Developed In Consultation With Oil And Gas Executives, Including Harold Hamm, Romney Advisor And Donor Who Owned Continental Resources Oil Company. “An individual close to the Romney campaign said that Mr. Romney’s staff drafted the proposal in consultation with industry executives, including Harold Hamm, an Oklahoma billionaire who is the chairman of the campaign’s energy advisory committee and chief executive of Continental Resources, an oil and gas driller.  Just this week, the oil and gas industry gave nearly $10 million toward the Romney election effort in two fund-raisers.  The Romney aide, who said she was not authorized to speak on the record about the plan, said that any consultation with industry officials was simply to tap their expertise and did not mean the proposal was being shaped to serve their interests.  Mr. Romney’s proposal drew immediate praise from the industry, which has complained that gas production on public lands has slowed under President Obama, even while it has surged on private lands.” [New York Times, 8/24/12]

Huffington Post: Romney’s Energy “Plan Underlines The Fact That The Republican Party And The Oil, Gas And Coal Industries, Long In Agreement On Policy And Ideology, Have Grown Closer Than Ever Before” – And Romney’s “Top Energy Adviser Is The Wealthiest Oilman In The Country.”  “Two days later, before a crowd wearing a mix of hardhats and cowboy hats in Hobbs, N.M., Romney unveiled his energy plan, which makes no mention of climate change and focuses on reaching energy independence by 2020 through increased extraction and use of oil, gas and coal, accompanied by reduced regulation for these industries. The plan underlines the fact that the Republican Party and the oil, gas and coal industries, long in agreement on policy and ideology, have grown closer than ever before. Romney, whose top energy adviser is the wealthiest oilman in the country, is on pace to raise more money from these industries than either George W. Bush or Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) did when he ran for president. The industries are also pumping millions into the new unlimited money vehicles, super PACs and dark money nonprofits, that are spending tens of millions of dollars per month to influence the election.” [Huffington Post, 8/24/12]

Romney Would Keep $4 Billion A Year In Tax Incentives And Tax Breaks For Oil And Gas Drilling. Romney’s energy positions include: “Keep tax incentives and tax breaks for oil and gas drilling. These amount to about $4 billion a year.” [Washington Post, 9/11/12]

ROMNEY WOULD CUT OFF FUNDING FOR RENEWABLE ENERGY WHICH HE DEEMED IMAGINARY ENERGY AND OPPOSES THE PRESIDENT’S INCREASED EFFICIENCY STANDARDS

Romney Has The “View That The Government Should Cut Off Aid To Renewable Energy.” “Romney’s view that the government should cut off aid to renewable energy marks a reversal for the candidate.” [Washington Post, 6/8/12]

Under Romney’s Energy Plan Renewable Energy And Energy-Efficiency Would Get The Short Shrift – Romney Zeros Out Federal Incentives For Solar, Wind Or Renewable Businesses. “Then there's the glaring absence of any mention of climate change or how much more carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases all that mining, transportation and fossil fuel-burning will cause, not to mention public health impact. Renewable energy and energy-efficiency also get short shrift from Romney. Any federal support would be limited to basic research — no incentives for solar, wind or other renewable businesses.” [K Kaufmann, Desert Sun, 9/1/12]

TIME: “Romney Has Suggested That Wind And Solar Are ‘Imaginary’ Sources Of Energy, But They Can Now Power 15 Million Homes, And Their Industries Employ More Than 300,000 Americans. That’s Real.” “Before President Obama took office, the U.S. had 25 gigawatts of wind power, and the government’s ‘base case’ energy forecast expected 40 GW by 2030. Well, it’s not quite 2030 yet, but we’ve already got 50 GW of wind. We’ve also got about 5 GW of solar, which isn’t much, but is over six times more than we had before Obama. Mitt Romney has suggested that wind and solar are ‘imaginary’ sources of energy, but they can now power 15 million homes, and their industries employ more than 300,000 Americans. That’s real.” [Michael Grunwald, TIME, 8/10/12]

The Hill Headline: “Romney Campaign: Let Wind Energy Credit Die This Year.” [The Hill, 7/30/12]

NBC’s Mike O’Brien Tweet: “Romney Spox Saul On The New CAFE Standards: ‘Governor Romney Opposes The Extreme Standards That President Obama Has Imposed…’” [@mpoindc, Twitter, 8/28/12]

AS GOVERNOR, ROMNEY CONDEMNED COAL-FIRED POWER PLANTS, CLAIMING THEY KILL PEOPLE…

Bloomberg: “As Governor Of Massachusetts, Romney Once Vowed To Close A Coal Plant Because It ‘Kills People.’” [Bloomberg, 8/24/12]

2003: Romney Vowed To Close An Aged Coal-Fired Power Plant Declaring “That Plant Kills People.” “Just after he took office, in 2003, he had attended a news conference at Salem Harbor, Mass., vowing to close an aged coal-fired power plant and declaring: ‘That plant kills people.’ His administration went to work on what would become the nation's first regulations on the emission of carbon dioxide, and helped launch negotiations on a Northeast regional compact to curb greenhouse-gas emissions.” [Wall Street Journal, 11/11/11]

In The Same 2003 Press Conference In Which Romney Claimed A Coal Plant “Kills People” Romney Said The Salem Harbor Coal Plant’s Extension To Comply With Massachusetts Clean-Air Guidelines Should Be Denied. “To detract from that narrative, the Obama campaign often points to Romney’s 2003 press conference outside the PG&E Salem Harbor plant at which he said ‘that plant kills people.’ During that same press conference – called so Romney could affirm his position that the Salem Harbor plant should not be given a two-year extension to comply with Massachusetts clean-air guidelines established in 2001 – Romney said some other things that if applied to this year’s presidential election could be construed as undermining his current attack against Obama.” [Columbus Dispatch, 9/21/12]

…AND CHAMPIONED HIS POWER PLANT REGULATIONS FOR MASSACHUSETTS AS “TOUGHEST IN THE NATION”

Romney Described His New Mercury Rules As A Part Of Massachusetts’ “Toughest-In-The-Nation Clean Air Rules.” “Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, R, has set in motion new rules that he said would ‘significantly limit mercury emissions from the state's four coal-fired power plants as part of Massachusetts' toughest-in-the-nation clean air rules.’ The regulations codify a proposal he first made last September.” [Electric Utility Week, 6/07/04]

Romney’s Environmental Czar Ellen Roy Herzfelder Stated: “We Really Are First In The Nation To Create A Standard For Mercury In The Electricity Sector… It’s A Huge Step Forward In Bringing Clean Air To Massachusetts.” [Boston Globe, 5/26/04]

2005: Romney Touted Massachusetts As “The First And Only State To Set CO2 Emissions Limits On Power Plants.”  “On Dec. 7, 2005, the Romney administration unveiled the final orders. ‘These carbon emission limits will provide real and immediate progress in the battle to improve our environment,’ then-Gov. Romney said in a press release touting Massachusetts as ‘the first and only state to set CO2 emissions limits on power plants.’” [Wall Street Journal, 10/6/11]

UNDER PRESIDENT OBAMA, THE UNITED STATES’ DEPENDENCE ON FOREIGN OIL WAS AT ITS LOWEST LEVEL IN 20 YEARS, AND IS CALLING ON CONGRESS TO EXTEND THE PRODUCTION TAX CREDIT

In The First Eight Months  Of 2012, The United States’ Dependence On Foreign Oil Was At Its Lowest Level In 20 Years. According to the Energy Information Administration, in the first seven months of 2012, the percent of net imports of petroleum as a share of petroleum products supplied averaged 41.9%. According to Energy Information Administration data, this is the lowest level since 1992 when the percent of net petroleum imports as a share of petroleum product supplied was 40.7%. [Calculated from Energy Information Administration data, Monthly Energy Review, September 2012]

• The Energy Information Administration Projects That Net Oil And Petroleum Imports As A Share Of Consumption Will Fall From 45 Percent In 2011 To 41 Percent In 2012 And 39 Percent In 2013. According to the Energy Information Administration’s Short Term Energy Outlook: “The share of total U.S. consumption met by total liquid fuel net imports of both crude oil and products has been falling since peaking at over 60 percent in 2005. In 2011, it averaged 45 percent, down from 49 percent in 2010.  EIA expects that the total net import share of consumption will continue to decline to 41 percent in 2012 and to 39 percent in 2013 because of the substantial increases in domestic crude oil production. If the 2013 forecast holds true, it would be the first time the share of total U.S. consumption met by total liquid fuel imports is less than 40 percent since 1991.” [Energy Information Administration, Short Term Energy Outlook, September 2012]

President Obama Is Calling On Congress To Extend The Production Tax Credit That Spurs Clean Energy Production By Providing A Tax Credit For The Production Of Clean Energy Like Wind. From a White House fact sheet: “The Production Tax Credit, which expires at the end of 2012, provides a 2.2 cent per kilowatt hour credit for utility scale wind producers. Congress should act to extend the credit. By extending the PTC benefits for American clean energy producers we can avoid layoffs across the country: The wind industry projects that nearly 30,000 jobs will be lost next year if the PTC expires, including direct jobs as well as those in its supply chain.” [White House Fact Sheet, 5/22/12]

• The American Wind Energy Association Projects That Failing To Extend The Production Tax Credits Would Put 37,000 Jobs At Risk. According to a press release from the American Wind Energy Association: “A recent study by Navigant Consulting found that extending the Production Tax Credit for wind energy will allow the industry to grow to 100,000 jobs in just four years, while an expiration would kill 37,000 jobs within a year.” [American Wind Energy Association, 4/25/12]

UNDER PRESIDENT OBAMA, EMPLOYMENT IN THE COAL MINING INDUSTRY REACHED ITS HIGHEST LEVEL SINCE 1996, AND THE PRESIDENT HAS MADE  HISTORIC INVESTMENTS IN CLEAN COAL TECHNOLOGY

EMPLOYMENT IN THE COAL MINING INDUSTRY REACHED A 15-YEAR HIGH IN 2011

Nationwide In 2011, Employment In The Coal Mining Industry Hit Its Highest Level Since 1996. According to preliminary data from the Mine Safety and Health Administration, the average number of employees in the coal mining industry was 94,729, the highest average employment since 1996 when there were 96,324 people employed in the coal mining industry. [Mine Safety and Health Administration, Mine Injury and Worktime Quarterly Statistics Coal Data 1993-2010, accessed 4/15/12; Mine Safety and Health Administration, Mine Injury and Worktime, Quarterly, January – December 2011, Final]

THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION HAS MADE HISTORIC INVESTMENTS IN CLEAN COAL TECHNOLOGY AND IS SUPPORTING DOZENS OF PROJECTS ACROSS THE COUNTRY

The Obama Administration Is Implementing A More Than $5 Billion Investment Strategy In Clean Coal Research And Development Which Has Attracted More Than $10 Billion In Private Investment. “Today’s awards are part of a more than $5 billion investment strategy by the Obama Administration in clean coal technologies and R&D. This strategy, which has attracted over $10 billion in additional private capital investment, is designed to accelerate commercial deployment of clean coal technologies – particularly carbon capture and storage (CCS) – and to position the United States as a leader in the global clean energy race.” [Department of Energy Press Release, 6/6/12]

The Recovery Act Made The Most Significant Investment In Federal Carbon Capture Research And Development Since The 2007 Energy Bill. According to a report by the Congressional Research Service: “In addition to the annual appropriations provided for CCS RD&D, the legislation most significant to federal CCS RD&D program activities since passage of [Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007] EISA has been the Recovery Act (P.L. 111-5). As discussed below, $3.4 billion in funding from the Recovery Act was intended to expand and accelerate the commercial deployment of CCS technologies to allow for commercial-scale demonstration in both new and retrofitted power plants and industrial facilities by 2020.” [Congressional Research Service, “Carbon Capture and Sequestration: Research, Development, and Demonstration at the U.S. Department of Energy,” 4/23/12]

On Wednesday, the President and Mitt Romney will debate each other for the first time – and the American people will be listening closely for the specifics of Mitt Romney’s economic plan. Romney can use this opportunity to give us those details for the first time, or he can spend 90 minutes doing what we know he's good at: attacking the president, distorting his own record, and avoiding any and all details of his plans for this country.

In anticipation of the debate, Obama for America has released a memo from Deputy Campaign Manager Stephanie Cutter outlining the many promises, and contradictions, you’re likely to hear from Romney. OFA has also released a new web video featuring Cutter to explain in detail what Mitt Romney is really saying in case he does spend those ninety minutes avoiding the facts and sticking instead to the same hollow plans he’s shown us before.

And we will be monitoring the debates live at www.barackobama.com/debate to keep the record straight, because the President isn’t afraid to talk about substance.

To read the memo see below or click HERE

To watch the web video click HERE.