Pages Menu
Categories Menu

Posted by on May 16, 2012 in Business, Economy, Politics | 3 comments

The Romney Con

If you scan through all the media attention Romney’s speech received, you are hard-pressed to find any news accounts that tell readers the following rather relevant points:

1) Nonpartisan experts believe Romney’s plans would increase the deficit far more than Obama’s would.

2) George W. Bush’s policies arguably are more responsible for increasing the deficit than Obama’s are. …Greg Sargent, WaPo

So stop with the partisan rhetoric. These are data that really will affect you — and your children and grandchildren. The data are solid.

The nonpartisan Tax Policy Center has taken a close look at this question. It has determined that relative to current policy — that is, if you keep the Bush tax cuts in place, as Romney wants to do — Romney’s tax cutting plans would increase the deficit by nearly $5 trillion over 10 years. That’s on top of keeping the Bush tax cuts for the rich. …Greg Sargent, WaPo

Even though the right likes to tell you that “non-partisan” doesn’t exist, it does. The facts are out there. Economic projections based on experience and solid economic data should be trusted. Then there’s something else: nothing in Mitt Romney’s past shows that he knows much about economics, much less national and international debt and deficits. Beyond that, there’s ample proof that Romney — over a lifetime and in a well-publicized career as a businessman — has chosen, quite consistently, personal gain over a healthy economy.

If your projections are based on what the candidates have done in the past as well as what they say they plan to do, Obama wins.

..Under Obama, the deficit would still increase. That’s because current policy means we’re forgoing the $4.5 trillion in revenues we’d gain if we let all the Bush tax cuts expire. But neither candidate is going to do that. Obama, however, would end the Bush tax cuts for the rich and bring in revenues through a variety of other tax increases. Bottom line: relative to current policy, Obama’s plan would reduce the deficit by bringing in $180 billion or more in revenues a year, or approximately $2 trillion over 10 years; Romeny’s plan would increase the deficit by nearly $500 billion a year — $5 trillion over ten years. …Sargent, WaPo

Of course by now we’ve learned that conservatives, for all their yada-yada about the deficit, would much rather run a huge deficit with Romney than allow Obama to win and leave them a smaller deficit. Deficits — sorry, more embarrassing facts — have never bothered Republicans when they’re in office. Deficits are what Republicans have been good at running up and Democrats are good at paying down. Check it out.

Cross posted from Prairie Weather