PLANK OCTOBER 4, 2012
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
The pundits are unanimous. Mitt Romney had more energy, offered more specifics, and may even have come across as more empathetic. I agree and polls suggest voters saw it the same way.
The debate may not change the dynamics of the election. But if I knew nothing about the candidates and this was my first exposure to the campaign, I’d think this Romney fellow has a detailed tax plan, wants to defend the middle class and poor, and will take care of people who can’t find health insurance.
Problem is, this isn’t my first exposure to the campaign. I happen to know a lot about the candidates. And I know that those three things aren’t true. Romney has made promises about taxes that are mathematically incompatible with one another. He’s outlined a spending plan that would devastate the middle class and (particularly) the poor. And his health care plan would leave people with pre-existing conditions pretty much in the same perilous situation they were before the Affordable Care Act became law.
My standard for candor in politics is whether candidates have offered the voters an accurate portrait of what they’ve done and what they are proposing. Tonight, Romney did precisely the opposite. And that really ought to be the story everybody is writing, although I doubt it will be.
Some details:
1. Taxes. President Obama repeatedly described Romney’s tax plan as a $5 trillion tax plan. Romney repeatedly took exception. The figure is correct. Romney has not given many details about his tax plan, but it’s possible to extrapolate from his promises and the Tax Policy Center, a project of the Brookings Institution and Urban Institute, did just that. Crunching the numbers, they determined that his proposed rate cut would cost… $5 trillion.
Romney has said he would offset those cuts by closing loopholes. The Tax Policy Center has analyzed that promise and found that it is mathematically impossible, unless Romney raises taxes on the middle class or lets his tax plan increase the deficit—neither of which Romney has said he's willing to do. Romney has challenged the Tax Policy Center conclusion and did so again tonight, referring mysteriously to “six studies” that supposedly prove he’s right. He's also been cryptic about what deductions he'd cut and, tonight, even suggested maybe he'd back away from some of the cuts if the numbers didn't add up—although, as always, he was so vague that the statements could mean absolutely nothing.
I wish Obama had pressed him on this inconsistency even more directly than he did: “OK, governor, you say you can offset the $5 trillion cost of your tax plan. Tell us how, with real numbers. Are you getting rid of the home mortgage deduction? The exclusion for health insurance? Be straight with the American people about what you are proposing.” Obama didn’t do that, but it's a question Romney has never been willing to answer.
2. The deficit and spending cuts. Asked by moderator Jim Lehrer how he’d cut the deficit, Romney outlined his plan for cutting spending. It included three main provisions.
First, Romney said, he’d repeal the Affordable Care Act. He’s serious about that, I presume. The problem is that, according to the Congressional Budget Office, the health care law reduces the deficit. Repeal it and the deficit goes up. Then Romney said he’d review programs and cut all that are non-essential, singling out PBS. Well, fine. That’s pennies on the budget. It wouldn’t be nearly enough to make a meaningful dent in the deficit.
After that, Romney mentioned “turning programs over to the states.” Here there is real money, particularly if Romney includes Medicaid, which will soon eclipse Medicare as the government’s most expensive health insurance program. But Romney suggested this would work because the states are more efficient. This is what he usually says. The implication is that the states can spend a lot less on the programs without dramatically reducing services.
That’s nonsense. Medicaid already pays less than every other insurance program, private and public. Cutting more from the program would inevitably force states to reduce whom or what the program covers. A year ago, when the House Republicans proposed a similar scheme, a Kaiser Family Foundation report by Urban Institute researchers crunched the numbers and determined that the Medicaid cut would mean between 14 and 27 million people would lose health insurance.
By the way, the researchers assumed states would deal with declining Medicaid money exclusively by cutting eligibility for the able-bodied and non-elderly. In fact, most of the program’s money goes to the disabled and elderly. Most likely, they’d feel at least some of the pain.
3. Medicare: Over and over again, Romney attacked Obama because the Affordable Care Act reduces Medicare spending by $716 billion. As you probably know by now, Paul Ryan’s budget made the exact same cut. And less than a year ago, Romney was praising this budget to the hilt.
But there’s another problem here: Romney’s own budget numbers don’t add up. Remember, he’s promised to cap non-defense spending at 16 percent of GDP. And he’s said he won’t touch Social Security. If he walls off Medicare, too, that would mean even sharper cuts across the board. How sharp? The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities ran the numbers. If Medicare is getting that $716 billion back, he’d have to cut other programs by an average of a third by 2016 and in half by 2022. Non-discretionary defense spending, which “has averaged 3.9 percent of GDP and never fallen below 3.2 percent,” would fall to 1.7 percent.
That’s simply not realistic. I have no problem believing Romney would cut domestic program deeply; his willingness to endorse the kinds of cuts he has specified, to Medicaid and food stamps, tell you everything you need to know about his priorities. But these figures are the stuff of fantasy. Either Romney can’t restore the Medicare dollars as he says or he’s not living up to his promises on deficit reduction.
The real shame of the exchange was that Romney's own plan got so little attention. Again, I wish Obama could have pressed Romney harder, or explained more clearly, why the voucher scheme he proposes would likely end the guarantee Medicare now makes to seniors—and why current retirees, as well as future ones, would feel the impact.
4. Health care and pre-existing conditions. Yeah, this was the part when I jumped out of my chair. Obama said that Romney’s alternative to Obamacare wouldn’t protect people with pre-existing conditions. Romney said it would. Sorry, but Romney is just plain wrong here. I’ve written about this before, so I’m just going to quote something I wrote previously:
Romney, like most Republicans, has long favored “continuous” coverage protection. But, for complicated reasons ... this protection is relatively weak unless it includes the sort of substantial regulation and subsidies that Romney, like most Republicans, has opposed. As a result, such protection would do very little for many of the people who need it most. Among other things, as Sarah Kliff points out ... “There are tens of millions of Americans who lack continuous coverage.” (A typical example would be somebody who lost a job, couldn’t keep making premium payments, and let coverage lapse.)
For people in this situation, Romney and the Republicans have traditionally said they favor coverage through “high-risk pools.” But high-risk pools are basically substandard policies: Although they cover catastrophic expenses, they leave people exposed to huge out-of-pocket costs. They also tend to be underfunded, because they cost a lot of money but serve only a small number of people. ...
So what would this mean in practice? Imagine for a second that you have cancer, diabetes, or Parkinson’s. With the coverage you’re likely to get form a high-risk pool, chances are that you’ll continue to struggle with medical bills. You’ll end up going into financial distress, just to cover your health are costs, unless you decide to start skipping treatment. And that’s obviously not a very good idea. These policies are better than nothing, for sure. But what you really need is comprehensive insurance and way to pay for it—in other words, the kind of protection that the Affordable Care Act will provide, starting in 2014, unless Romney and the Republicans repeal it.
I don’t want to pretend Obama was always as forthright as he could have been, any more than I want to suggest he was the more adept debater tonight. At one point, Obama talked about letting tax rates on higher incomes return to Clinton-era levels as essential to reducing the deficit. That’s true. But a truly serious approach to deficit reduction would let all taxes, even those on more modest incomes, return to Clinton-era levels (albeit after the economy is on sounder footing). Obama decried Romney’s plan to leave seniors “at the mercy of the private insurance system” but those are strong words from a guy whose own health care plan relies heavily on insurance plans, albeit with a lot more regulation than most conservatives like.
Still, these are tiny transgressions compared to Romney’s, which also included misleading statements about the origins of the deficit and claims of a jobs plan that is, if anything, even more unspecific than his tax plan. And I worry that nobody will call him on it.
As part of its post-debate analysis, ABC News asked correspondent Jonathan Karl to play the role of fact-checker. He picked out one statement from each side and rated it “mostly false.” But the Obama statement Karl picked was the description of Romney’s tax plan as costing $5 trillion—a figure, again, that comes straight from the Tax Policy Center. That’s not “mostly false.” If anything, it’s “mostly true.” Then Karl talked about Romney’s pre-existing condition promise, which really is “mostly false.” Sigh.
Update: Steve Benen and Greg Sargent noticed the same thing, so that's a start.
follow me on twitter @CitizenCohn
44 comments
Yeah, unfortunately, pundits are grading in the world of fuzzy and not the world of facts. The fact that they are on news channels broadcasting to millions and the newspeople barely get the facts and the actual points across is infuriating. I mean, they have plenty of time for Gergen and Borger to talk about style and where they think the race is moving even though they have no way to talk about the actual policy points that were discussed (or completely lied about) and how they would affect viewers as citizens and voters.
- chaitless
October 4, 2012 at 1:05am
"But if I knew nothing about the candidates and this was my first exposure to the campaign, I’d probably think this Romney fellow has a detailed tax plan, wants to defend the middle class and poor, and will take care of people who can’t find health insurance." This was my reaction, too. I find it encouraging that, in order to win the election, Romney feels he has to present himself as being to the left of Obama. It would be aggravating if he gets away with it, but there are benefits to the progressive cause in having the spectrum of debate shift back to the left a bit.
- Fishpeddler
October 4, 2012 at 1:19am
The framework within which this so-called debate took place was actually pathetic, in my opinion. The moderator, Jim Lehrer did not ask a single question about the first thing that one of these two people will have to deal with and which will frame everything else that was brought up tonight: the "Fiscal Cliff." Does anyone really think that the Republicans in congress are going to work with President Obama, if he is reelected on this issue? No they won't. They'll be more resistant to working with him on anything because they're mad that he was reelected. If Romney wins, does anyone really think he will be able to enact his policy proposals with the Fiscal Cliff issue needing to be dealt with? Either way it doesn't look good. The fact that no one has brought this up tonight on the media I watched (CNN and NPR) was striking. Looks like we're dealing with American Idol - why not let people text in their opinions as to who "won" the "debate."
- seansharp1
October 4, 2012 at 1:21am
IGNORING AMERICA'S POOR POSTING IN AL JAZEERA http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/insidestoryus2012/2012/10/201210343152481862.html
- JAIMECHUCH
October 4, 2012 at 6:46am
IGNORING AMERICA'S POOR POSTING IN AL JAZEERA http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/insidestoryus2012/2012/10/201210343152481862.html
- JAIMECHUCH
October 4, 2012 at 6:46am
As posted elsewhere, the big picture is NOT who won the debate between an unlikeable caqndidate with idiot policies and a likeable incompetent with inadequate policies-- bur rather that if the incompetent wins, he and his party will be saddled with the failure of inadequate policies as if they were adequate. BHO does NOT articulate Progressive policies and ideologies because at heart he is a bit to the right of an Eisenhower Republican on far too many issues. As Fish.. and Sean.. imply, to win Mittens presents himself as if he is to the left of BHO--- because Progressives really do have effective policies that most voters actually support. Would be nice if BHO could both support AND defend them. The end result being a BHO loss (while unlikely) would not be an unmitigated disaster for more than a couple of years as Romney will not solve the upcoming financial crisis--and Dems will re-organze and win in 2014 and 2016. Similarly, a BHO win stands a good chance of being an unmitigated disaster after a year as he will hardly solve (or be allowed to solve-- even IF he had adequate policies) the upcoming financial crisis-- and lead to Republican domination for many years to come.
- drofnats1
October 4, 2012 at 6:49am
IGNORING AMERICA'S POOR POSTING IN AL JAZEERA Ignoring America's poor With 46 million people living in poverty, why are the presidential candidates so quiet on issues affecting the poor? Inside Story US 2012 Last Modified: 03 Oct 2012 09:38 http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/insidestoryus2012/2012/10/201210343152481862.html
- JAIMECHUCH
October 4, 2012 at 6:55am
I'm hoping that Romney's gambles, like his merit-less insistence that his tax plan is revenue neutral, do not pay off. If they do, concealment will become the rule in political campaigns with all sorts of reasons for not telling us anything. Reagan pretended something like this and almost tripled the debt.
- Nusholtz
October 4, 2012 at 7:57am
It's my hope that today the facts come home to roost. But I fear that last night wasn't one massive rope-a-dope.
- Mikelawyr22
October 4, 2012 at 8:33am
Of course Romney appeared calm and earnest -- he was lying. He was presenting a picture of himself at variance with reality, and doing it pretty well. Reality is inconvenient. Falsehoods are glib and convenient. Why is no one pointing out he said "I will NOT cut taxes on the Wealthy, and I will NOT raise taxes on the middle-class". When he's proposed for 18 months now a 20% cut in taxes on the wealthy? Okay, so Obama hammered the "5 trillion dollars", when he should have been hammering the "cut further 20%". But still -- saying he's not going to cut taxes further, when that's been a cornerstone of his Supply-Side campaign, is a bald-faced lie. I agree with the comment, he's trying to appear more moderate than Obama. Which is yet another bald-faced lie. The fact-checkers should have a field day.
- AllanL5
October 4, 2012 at 8:39am
Everyone should take a chill pill. First, there are two more debates. Second, no one who watches the debates enters into it blind - that is, they arrive with preconceived notions, within a specific framework. Most are decided already, some have even voted. Five percent of the electorate appears to be swayable, and even they are operating within a specific framework. Third, that framework has been meticulously set by Obama over the last four months, with quite a lot of help from Romney. That is why Romney is at 50% unfavourability. Fourth, much of the negative reaction to Obama's wonkiness came from white males. But that is not whom he is aiming for. He has an 18% advantage among women. It is possible that Obama was wonky because he is a bad debater, because he has not been challenged, because he was overprepared, because he was tired, because he was underprepared, because the Moon and Saturn did not align, because he just had a bad day - I have those, so did Reagan, in fact, and Brando. It is possible that Romney was exceptionally good because his alpha male personality is good in these settings - lie, attack, lie and lie again, all with authority. It is possible that Obama made a mistake in not going on the attack on Bain, on the 47%, on whatever. ... I don't believe that Obama or his team are diabolically smart and that this is part of a rope-a-dope masterplan. But, it is clear that 1) Obama plays the long game; 2) part of the strategy is not to appear whiney, or like an angry black man; 3) another part of the strategy is to increase Romney's unfavourables, as a person; and 4) generally, to use an opponent's weight and strength against him. View the debate performance as against this perspective and the above framework, and the angst appears to be to overblown. Seriously. "Governor Romney and I agree on this" - right there, is a gem of a statement. Immediately, he has defanged Romney's line of attack against him as some sort of an alien our to destroy the known Universe. To have pushed Romney to attack him from the left on Medicare, with Ryan in the background, is simply amazing. Whatever Romney has said on taxes and his tax plans will show up on ads and in the next debate. Many of those who through Romney won also thought that he was "insufferably smug" - the know-il-all boorish ex-husband of Julia, effectively. It is possible to lie too much, and to do so confidently because you view your opponent as weak and unprepared. Romney has not done himself any favours by "winning" in the way he has done.
- icarus-r
October 4, 2012 at 9:59am
Governor Romney repeatedly claimed that the Affordable Care Act had increased health care costs for middle class families by something like $2500. The claim went unanswered. What the hell was that about?
- aduncanson
October 4, 2012 at 10:52am
JC writes: " President Obama repeatedly described Romney’s tax plan as a $5 trillion tax plan. Romney repeatedly took exception. The figure is correct." The figure is NOT correct. Romney's website says this very clearly: He will drop marginal rates by 20%. Deductions will be dramatically reduced. Effective rates will stay the same. What he clarified last night was: An automatic deduction will be picked, be it $25K or $35K or $50K, that will deliver the same effective rate for the middle class. And he also added the top will continue to carry the same share of the burden. The purpose here is to greatly simplify tax code. Deductions are bad. They are favors curried by lobbyists. Get rid of them all. They are bad for oil companies, they are bad for home owners. This is a good thing. Obama seemed absolutely bewildered at the concept. The rest of the observations are similarly flawed. BTW, what became clear last night is the press, by sidestepping their normal role as challenger to Obama, has turned Obama weak and flaccid. The man cannot answer a single question beyond the top-level assertion. Scratch the surface one layer down and he completely crumbles. He's got nothing. We got a hint of this at the Univision interview. Romney delivered it in wave after wave of punishing facts. The media would do well to keep their man at least at fighting weight. Lazy press means lazy president. And man oh man did it show.
- seattleeng
October 4, 2012 at 11:13am
Rope-a-dope is not necessarily a bad strategy for BHO. But after absorbing the punishment--in this case, making Mitt look like an overbearing jerk--you have to, at some point, fight back and put the guy away. By the way, the classic documentary on the original rope-a-dope fight in Kinshasa is an absolutely stunning film, just in case anyone needs to be reminded how it was done by the master.
- Vogelfam
October 4, 2012 at 11:38am
I am hoping that the extreme mendacity on Romney's part is turned into a bunch of negative advertisements. That's what I hope the strategy is -- bait Romney into saying anything, then compare it to his record.
- subterra
October 4, 2012 at 12:15pm
The figure is correct, Seattle. Romney has proposed (almost) $5 trillion (over 10 years) in specific tax cuts. He has claimed that his plan will be revenue neutral, which is certainly possible. But it is not possible for his plan to be revenue-neutral without violating other claims that he has made about his tax plan. Even Romney-friendly analyses have shown that he can't possibly make the numbers add up. Romney could clear this up by providing the details of which deductions, loopholes, etc. he proposes to close, but he won't do that and the reason for that is obvious.
- JEFF FREY
October 4, 2012 at 12:24pm
Excellent analysis and presentation. I was amazed so many times by the overt lies, but another one would hit you before you could possibly digest the first one, leaving you feeling like a Packer fan. It is kind of like taking on the Tea Party over their "keep your government hands off my Medicare" sign...where do you begin to grab a mental footing, there are so many issues you don't know where to start, which is likely the plan. Smart people like this author make it their job to keep up and summarize effectively, and aren't likely on their second glass of chardonnay by that time of night. Now work on that succinct response to the Tea Party, then go home early, you've earned it..
- smabry03
October 4, 2012 at 12:33pm
Jeff, here's a bit more on the topic. The numbers can readily be made to work. Maddow et al hear 20% cut and think that means that a millionaires taxes drop by a lot. They don't. His effective rates stay the same as Romney made clear last night. www.nber.org/feldstein/wsj08282012.pdf The math seems workable. The idea is definitely appealing.
- seattleeng
October 4, 2012 at 12:44pm
Response to aduncanson. I believe his statement about a $2500 tax increase under ACA was referring to the inclusion of medical devices incurring a 2% (roughly) tax that medical manufacturers will pay under the new law. The negotiation argument was the device manufacturers will be growing their markets significantly, so a small hit on price to increase the numbers of potential patients for which they can now be reimbursed, was a small price to pay; but they went whining to their GOP House boys via their lobbyists, so they throw it up as a tax to consumers, when it is a tax on manufacturers. To suggest that all of that tax will be passed onto consumers, is to deny all the ways a capitalistic system can waylay that plan, mostly by wily competitors who will steal your market share if you suddenly jack up your price; much less the fact that about 90% of total healthcare purchases are determined by 1-5 year contracts with built in safeguards against sudden price increases.
- smabry03
October 4, 2012 at 12:54pm
What was definitely a pity was that Obama didn't go the satirical route and praise Romneycare as a significant achievement while asking Mitt why it can't be the model for a successful national health care plan -- after all, the individual mandate is (1) a conservative plan, (2) crucial for both the MA plan and the ACA to work at all, and (3) now ratified by a Supreme Court decision. Even within the "stay quiet look moderate" style the Obama tried last night, he could still have pricked Romney's balloon with that one.
- ironyroad
October 4, 2012 at 1:03pm
I'm surprised to hear Seattle so heartily endorse the big government candidate in the debate -- Romney was practically tripping over himself in his haste to portray himself as the defender of Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, federal education assistance, etc -- but I'm glad that he's finally seen the light.
- Fishpeddler
October 4, 2012 at 1:32pm
America survived Harding. Well, it survived the first Harding. If we go with two in a row in a century's time, we are pressing our luck. On the hand, there is allegedly a supervolcano under Yellowstone, and it probably does not care how smart or how stupid a President we have.
- skahn
October 4, 2012 at 4:38pm
Nah, I think he was referring to this; http://www.demint.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=freedom-on-call&ContentRecord_id=e221386d-b262-4839-b001-2b3a4a90316d&ContentType_id=e915486e-a0be-46eb-9fff-75dc61f28710&Group_id=78a5977a-062b-4259-ae04-d82a78579699 The CBO report that DeMint refers to suggests that there will be a $2100 increase for the 43% not receiving subsidies of the 17% of families not in a group plan. And that increase occurs because these families are buying better coverage, in many cases doing so voluntarily - because they can afford it. For the 93% of families not in that category there is no effect on premium or for many, costs will range from a little, to a lot, lower. I think that this is one of the most misleading of Romney's statements.
- aduncanson
October 4, 2012 at 5:45pm
Rish writes: "I'm surprised to hear Seattle so heartily endorse the big government candidate in the debate -- Romney was practically tripping over himself in his haste to portray himself as the defender of Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, federal education assistance, etc -- but I'm glad that he's finally seen the light." Romney was no such person, Fish. He said they all had problems, and that those that were older than 55 today would enjoy the program as was promised, but everyone else was going to see changes such that these programs could remain viable. Amen. Taranto in the WSJ hit the nail on the head today: "What we saw last night was the real Obama--a bright but incurious and inexperienced man who four years ago was promoted well beyond his level of competency. The Obama that guys like Matthews and Sullivan expected instead was a character in a fairy tale--a fairy tale written by guys like Matthews and Sullivan."
- seattleeng
October 4, 2012 at 5:55pm
aduncanson writes: "And that increase occurs because these families are buying better coverage, in many cases doing so voluntarily - because they can afford it." But Obama didn't promise that people would be so pleased with the new insurance that they'd gladly pay more. He said the costs for family coverage would fall $2500. And now the CBO says they will increase by $2500. And you can only offer "Yeah, but for that extra $5000 you get free birth control pills thanks to Obama!" Odd. Keep in mind, this is the same slice of the population that has just seen their income drop by $4000 under this president. And yes, much of that decline is due to a massive surplus of labor (high unemployment) due to paralyzed businesses that have opted to wait things out. And they wait things out because 1) the president continually slams them as greedy, and 2) the president makes it impossible for them to understand what a new employee might cost in the long term. So, if you add all this up, then are down about $9000 for those free birth control pills. Yikes. Nine Freaking Thousand Dollars for Birth Control Pills.
- seattleeng
October 4, 2012 at 6:06pm
(Reluctantly) I don't think we are talking about birth control pills. I think we are talking about co-pays of 20% rather than 40%, decent coverage for physical therapy, Durable Medical Equipment and similar categories; also prescription drug coverage that actually pays most of the pharmacy bill. In short this means insurance that actually protects a middle class family from bankruptcy. You need to gain some comprehension of just how poor the coverage provided by some of the insurance offered on the individual policy market, is.
- aduncanson
October 4, 2012 at 6:38pm
Seattle, you missed the point: Romney said those programs had problems, not that weren't the role of the federal government to fulfill. Libertarianism died last night.
- Fishpeddler
October 4, 2012 at 7:07pm
aduncanson writes: "In short this means insurance that actually protects a middle class family from bankruptcy. You need to gain some comprehension of just how poor the coverage provided by some of the insurance offered on the individual policy market, is." Protection from bankruptcy is incredibly cheap to obtain. It is the cheapest insurance that is sold. It's commonly known as high deductible. It costs less than a cellphone with a data plan each month. Crappy insurance policies will exist, just as crappy cars exist. Just as crappy cellphones exist. Not sure what your point is there. Are you alluding to the fact that some might have trouble actually understanding what an insurance policy offers? Just as some aren't able to understand the ramifications of a complex mortgage agreement? I don't doubt that. But I don't think the solution is punishing the other 85% of the population. Fish writes: "Seattle, you missed the point: Romney said those programs had problems, not that weren't the role of the federal government to fulfill. Libertarianism died last night." And what, you think Romney should have stood up on the stage and promised to abolish them all? Obama has had 4 years to make them solid. He's opted to party with JayZ and play golf and go on the View as eye candy. It's time for someone who really cares to step up. What is incredible about last night is that Obama didn't have basic numbers and facts at his command. This wasn't about debate prep. I don't need to "prep" for my job everyday. It's second nature. This idea that if only Obama would have studied harder or prepared more is just laughable. The fact is: Obama couldn't debate the topics because he doesn't KNOW the topics. Things like the debt, the deficit, SS and medicare are languishing because they have been neglected for the last 4 years. He promised to take care off all this. He hasn't. But he's had lots of time for golf. Being president isn't a hobby. It's a full time job. This president has been fundraising the last year and neglecting his work. And partying the years before that. Meanwhile, the middle class has seen their salaries fall by almost $4K and medical expenses climb by $5K. Enough. Time for grownups to try.
- seattleeng
October 4, 2012 at 7:43pm
Try this one, Seattle: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/09/10/is-romneys-tax-plan-mathematically-possible-after-all/ I'm sticking with my statement: But it is not possible for his plan to be revenue-neutral without violating other claims that he has made about his tax plan.
- JEFF FREY
October 4, 2012 at 7:56pm
Or this: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/09/27/wonkblogs-comprehensive-guide-to-the-debate-over-romneys-tax-plan/?print=1 From the start of the conclusions: "It’s worth emphasizing just how low a bar the Romney plan is being asked to clear. The question the Tax Policy Center asked was whether it’s mathematically possible to do all the things Romney says he wants to do. But even if it were mathematically possible, it may not be politically possible or substantively wise. All of the above analyses assume that Romney totally eliminates the charitable deduction, mortgage-interest deduction, all education tax breaks, all state and local tax deductions the employer-provided health care exemption, all Health Savings Account and medical expenses deductions, and more for people making over $200,000. Even if TPC is wrong, you’d probably have to limit them for people making under that amount too, so middle-class people pay the same amount when you take into account the rate cuts." And I think we can safely assume that the above just ain't gonna happen no matter who is President.
- JEFF FREY
October 4, 2012 at 8:02pm
Seattle said: "Enough. Time for grownups to try." That a good point. Re-elect Obama, support him with senators and representatives working for the good of the nation rather than exclusively the good of the Republican party. It would be good to be rid of those Terrible Two-Year-Olds who have devoted their working lives to undermining the American President. Despite the soundness of your above point, Seattle, even Mitt expressed disagreement with your assessment of Obama's command of the facts last night; he complimented Obama after an extended riff particularly brimming with policy details. Or was that during the 89 minutes or so of the debate you obviously slept through?
- Fishpeddler
October 4, 2012 at 8:20pm
OK, I gotta get serious for a moment here, Seattle. Between yourself and Mr. Rat, I've seen some pretty crazy comments, but I can usually figure out what realm of conservative or libertarian thought they metastasized from. But this one is beyond comprehension: "It's time for someone who really cares to step up." Do you really mean this as an argument for Romney? Whatever it is he cares about, its not what most people think of when they think of an American president. We already know of Mitt's disdain for half the country. And given his willful endorsement of the Republican platform, we know that he doesn't have a particular care for much of the remainder either. If you want to vote for someone who cares, and you don't think its Obama, than write-in any human being's name other than Mitt; odds are you will do better at fulfilling your goal.
- Fishpeddler
October 4, 2012 at 8:33pm
seattle - "Lazy press means lazy president. And man oh man did it show." I don't know about the press being responsible, but I agree that a lazy president showed last night. Some other words like "nonchalant", "passive," "casual" and "lackadaisical", also, are descriptive of the man debating Romney last night. But lazy was dead on. I wouldn't say that I was surprised because I've seen him pull the same act against Hillary in the primaries of 2008. At the time, I commented here that he looked fatigued, that perhaps a good sleep before the debates would do him some good. "Lazy", though, never crossed my mind, not until I read seattle's post. The president was clearly unprepared for a fight last night. A fight that everybody, including him, knew was coming. Stunning!
- scrubby
October 4, 2012 at 8:52pm
"It's time for someone who really cares to step up." Oh please, seattle. Cut out the juvenile, partisan crap. Disagree with Obama all you want, but please don't go there. Now I'm beginning to wonder if when you used the word "lazy", you were not talking in code.
- scrubby
October 4, 2012 at 8:58pm
Scrubby: Obama had to deal with a potential war between Syria and Turkey on the day of the debate. He might have preoccupied; lazy, he is not. Seattle's use of the term is not accidental.
- icarus-r
October 4, 2012 at 11:54pm
I used that term, ick, because of the president's very obvious lack of prep for for a debate in which he had a chance to put Romney away for good, Syria and Turkey not withstanding. I did not mean to imply a shiftless, lazy you-know-what, the way I now believe seattle and other wingnuts are applying the term. The one way Romney would get back into this race was if he was allowed by the president to deliver a lights-out performance. I was just shocked at how Obama, seemingly, never thought about it that way.
- scrubby
October 5, 2012 at 7:41am
"I used that term, ick, because of the president's very obvious lack of prep for for a debate in which he had a chance to put Romney away for good" I still haven't figured out what people mean by remarks like "obvious lack of prep". I thought Obama was clearly prepped for the debate -- he simply told the truth calmly and collectedly, with a firm grasp of detail. Once upon a time, that WAS preparedness for a debate. If the Romney technique of lying with bombast is more appealing, that is the fault of the viewer, not Obama.
- Fishpeddler
October 5, 2012 at 10:05am
Scrubby: I see your point, but there are two things to consider, conceding that of course Obama, being human, might just have had a bad evening. The first is that, I think your premise is wrong. Regardless of Obama's individual performance, I don't think that Romney could have been put out of action. We talk about Obama and Obama's performance as if this is something that he thought of doing on the night. He has an army of advisers, no doubt many of them psychologists and pollsters, who tell him what might work and what might not work, not just in one debate but in the course of the final stretch. In this context, as we saw with Romney's performance on the night of the debate and also his retraction of 47% comment, the analysis would likely have been that 1) Romney is capable of shapeshifting on any subject; and 2) he is a bully who needs his bully-ness in full flight to solify his unfavourability rating among women. If I am right in this, then an aggressive Obama would come through as whiney ("stop changing your position", "stop lying", "really?") and an Obama that called out Romney's lies would have come across as unPresidential - whatever that means. I think Obama enabled Romney. And the Right. If they thought that Obama was another Carter, now they have been proven right. In their own minds. I am convinced that the next punch, in the townhalls, will be to Romney's solar plexus. And he won't know where it came from and how it got there, but it will be ugly. Second, let us not forget the entire Romney and Republican campaign: "Obama is a socialist foreigner". Every time Obama said, "the Governor and I agree", without protest from Romney, Obama defanged Romney on both counts. Between now and November, should Romney or Ryan or any of their surrogates attack Obama's socialism, all they have to do is show the clips or, better, raise it in the debates. "Governor Romney agrees with me in the debate and goes out and contradicts himself the next day." Lazy he is not, in either sense.
- icarus-r
October 5, 2012 at 10:14am
Fish: this is Sullivan's argument, that Obama talked in abstract terms but was "unprepared" with specific examples in response to Romney's own specific examples. I think it's nonsense, but there you have it. I've been in court when counsel for the other side 1) outright lies, 2) makes things up, or 3) changes position. I've also done competitive debating, in the far reaches of history, and and debated in political campaigns. I have both been outraged and feigned it; I have demonstrated passion and been passive; I have resisted bullying and allowed it to happen. It is impossible to come up with a single formula that works in each instance; and it is silly to advise someone like Obama to be someone he clearly is not and to do something he clearly won't do (calling Romney a liar to his face is not on). But I do know that one time I was going against a Harvard-Yale "genius" litigator - a bully of the first rank - we won the case and I had him bleeding to death on the court-room floor, not by resisting his bullying but by enabling it. He said some stuff that just demonstrated the case to be frivolous. On a purely point system, I conceded the pleadings to him; strategically, we got what we want. The guy plays the long game.
- icarus-r
October 5, 2012 at 10:24am
850,000 new jobs, 450,000 people joining the workforce, unemployment under 8 percent (which has been the Right's magic figure) ... and the Right attacking the data, as usual. Romney's attacks on the jobs front look silly now.
- icarus-r
October 5, 2012 at 11:10am
Jeff writes: "I'm sticking with my statement: But it is not possible for his plan to be revenue-neutral without violating other claims that he has made about his tax plan." Note if you are using any info from the left-leaning Tax Policy Center (which is staffed with ex-Obama campaign folks), then you should know they just made up what they thought would cut and not cut. Their outcome has zero bearing on reality. And yet it's widely cited by the left. CNN and FactCheck both found the $5T tax cut not true. Fish writes: "That a good point. Re-elect Obama, support him with senators and representatives working for the good of the nation rather than exclusively the good of the Republican party." Actually, we need an adult to reign in congress. I'm reading a good book on LBJ right now. What is fascinating is how ineffectual Kennedy was at getting legislation passed. LBJ wasn't much of a visionary, but when he found himself thrust into the presidency, he took JFK's piles of hopeful legislation, and got it all passed in short order by living on the phone 24x7 until it was passed. Something JFK just couldn't get done. There has never been a clearer example that some are particular suited for the vision, and some are suited for execution. Obama is certainly not an execution guy. But he's got plenty of time for golf and The View. scrubby writes: "Some other words like "nonchalant", "passive," "casual" and "lackadaisical", also, are descriptive of the man debating Romney last night. But lazy was dead on." Do you think the press has done a good job pressuring the president to really refine and defend his thinking? Or do you agree they have been lazy in their dealings with the president? Fish writes: "I still haven't figured out what people mean by remarks like "obvious lack of prep". I thought Obama was clearly prepped for the debate -- he simply told the truth calmly and collectedly, with a firm grasp of detail. " Lack of prep means he could state a campaign-trail sound bite, but when the rebuttal came, he coudln't cite a number. He couldn't challenge an assertion. That is where Romney won. Obama asserted A, Romney demolished it with B, Obama didn't have C. But these are not prep items. These are facts the president should have at his fingertips as part of his daily job. There was nothing to prep for. What prep is all about is: Here are weaknesses in Romney's plans. Here is what he'll assert. But the numbers around his day to day job functions aren't prep. He should know those. And he didn't. Icarus writes: "1) Romney is capable of shapeshifting on any subject;" But he wasnt' shapeshifting. The press had built a straw man and named him Romney. They had their preconceived notions of what Romney was about ($5T tax cut for wealthy) and had their read his website once, then a state like "I'll still generate the same revenue from the wealthy" wouldn't be a surprise. BUT if you relied on the Tax Policy Center's strawman of Romney, then hell yes, you were surprised. Icarus writes: "Lazy he is not, in either sense." What are we measuring? Rounds of golf? Legislation passed? Security meetings attended? Job council meetings attended? Parties attended? Hard interview conducted? Meetings with congress? I'm sorry, but I just dont' think the president's stats measure up in the area that they need to measure up.
- seattleeng
October 5, 2012 at 12:04pm
"Lack of prep means he could state a campaign-trail sound bite, but when the rebuttal came, he coudln't cite a number. " Seattle, there is no point in you continuing to provide us with proof that you missed most of the debate, we already believe it. Obama cited numbers on numerous points, and even overwhelmed Romney with his use of them at one point. The problem wasn't that Obama couldn't or didn't cite numbers, but that Romney would simply lie and say that's not true. They would argue a bit about it, then move on. What would you want Obama to do, pull out an iPad full of documents supporting his point? That's not generally consider a great debate strategy, regardless of how useful it would be for our gullible friends in the Pacific Northwest. But I'm wasting my breath here, because this discussion will be much more productive once you get around to actually watching the debate. Regarding working Congress better, are you even glancingly familiar with the make-up of Congress during LBJ's terms. I suspect not, because otherwise you would have bothered to at least mention why you consider it appropriate to use as your model a president working with a significantly less polarized congress and one far more favorably disposed to Democrats. As long as you are making asinine comparisons, why don't you tell us how terrible the British ship captains crossing the North Atlantic were in 1939 -- after all, ships in 1938 made the crossing just fine. Seattle, I don't know how many times you're going to cite the Romney campaign website, but it really needs to stop, for your own sake. Saying, "I read it on Romney's website" as proof of your claims has to be one of those most pathetic displays since... well, since the last time Mr. Rat showed up.
- Fishpeddler
October 5, 2012 at 1:26pm
"I read it on Romney's website" as proof of your claims has to be one of those most pathetic displays since ... Seattle quoted Jennifer Rubin on the Jobs report.
- icarus-r
October 5, 2012 at 2:48pm
fish and ick, point taken..............grudgingly.
- scrubby
October 5, 2012 at 3:51pm