[error][Why the Ryan-Romney Economic Plan Would Be A Disaster for America][/error]
>by August 21, 2012 | EgbertoWillies.com |Egberto, I would have to agree with your assessment of these two guys. Yes, it would be a disaster for America’s elderly, the middle-class and the poor – in so many ways! We’ll let Robert Reich and Paul Krugmen give the details of the Ryan-Romney plan – below! Gbismarc!]|
Yesterday I watched Paul Ryan and Mitt Romney campaigning in New Hampshire. They appeared together at an open air town hall. I must admit that they looked great together. They had an enthusiastic crowd of supporters.
I listened to their entire speech and some of the questions and answers. The questions were cookie cutter fed questions.
I found the presentation by both Ryan and Romney to be spirited and very good. Anyone void of economic knowledge and history could easily be swayed by what I saw.
They made a voucher replacement for standard Medicare seem as if it is in the best interest of the recipients as opposed to its real purpose, reduce cost to the government in order to provide tax cuts to a few as well as provide insurance companies a transfer of wealth from the middle class to the wealthy. Remember, as opposed to 97% of Medicare taxes going to healthcare, private companies disperse at most 80% to healthcare, the rest going into the pockets of insurance executives, shareholders, advertising, and expenses.
They made the unshackling from regulations seem like the emancipation from government that would spur growth. They fail to acknowledge that lack of regulation is what partially decimated our economy.
These guys support unfettered laissez faire capitalism in which a very few will ultimately have access to success. When a careful analysis is done one can only see the continued path to a total plutocracy, middle class be damn.
Robert Reich’s analysis below is instructive and should be shared throughout your network. It is imperative that you share this post to your family, your friends, your co-workers, and your acquaintances.
[notice] 5 Reasons Why the Ryan-Romney Economic Plan Would Be A Disaster for America [/notice]
>by Robert Reich Posted: 08/20/2012 2:54 pm
Chancellor’s Professor of Public Policy, University of California at Berkeley; Author, ‘Beyond Outrage’
Mitt Romney hasn’t provided details so we should be grateful he’s selected as vice president a man with a detailed plan Romney says is “marvelous,” “bold and exciting,” “excellent,” “much needed,” and “consistent with” what he’s put out.
So let’s look at the five basic features of this “marvelous” Ryan plan.
[notice]The Romney-Ryan Economic Plan[/notice]
Published on Aug 20, 2012 by karinmoveon
Director / Producer: Jacob Kornbluth
Camera: Rick Symonds
Camera: Oliiver Elliott
Teleprompter: Mike Fleming
FIRST: It would boost unemployment because it slashes public spending next year and the year after, when the economy is still likely to need a boost, not a fiscal drag. It would be the same austerity trap now throwing Europe into recession. According to the Economic Policy Institute , Ryan’s plan would mean 1.3 million fewer jobs next year than otherwise, and 2.8 million fewer the year after.
SECOND: Ryan would take from lower-income Americans and give to the rich — who already have the biggest share of America’s total income and wealth in almost a century. His plan would raise taxes on families earning between 30 and 40 thousand dollars by almost $500 a year, and slash programs like Medicare, food stamps, and children’s health What would Ryan do with these savings? Reduce taxes on millionaires by an average of over $500,000 a year.
THIRD: Ryan wants to turn Medicare into vouchers that won’t keep up with the rising costs of health care — thereby shifting the burden onto seniors. By contrast, Obama’s Affordable Care Act saves money on Medicare by reducing payments to medical providers like hospitals and drug companies.
FOURTH: He wants to add money to defense while cutting spending on education, infrastructure, and basic research and development. America already spends more on defense than the next five biggest military spenders put together. Our future productivity depends on the public investments Ryan wants to cut.
FIFTH AND Finally, Ryan’s budget doesn’t even reduce the federal budget deficit — not for decades. Remember: He’s adding to military spending, giving huge additional tax cuts to the very rich, and stifling economic growth by cutting spending too early. The Center for Budget and Policy Priorities estimates Ryan’s Roadmap would push public debt to over 175 percent of GDP by 2050.
So there you have it. The Ryan — Ryan-ROMNEY — economic plan.
And the five reasons why it would be a disaster for America.
(Please watch the video — and share.)
ROBERT B. REICH, Chancellor’s Professor of Public Policy at the University of California at Berkeley, was Secretary of Labor in the Clinton administration. Time Magazine named him one of the ten most effective cabinet secretaries of the last century. He has written thirteen books, including the best sellers “Aftershock” and “The Work of Nations.” His latest is an e-book, “Beyond Outrage.” He is also a founding editor of the American Prospect magazine and chairman of Common Cause.
[notice]Paul Krugman: Paul Ryan’s economic plan is a joke[/notice]
>by Paul Krugman | Posted: 08/20/2012 01:44:03 PM PDT | Updated: 08/20/2012 02:26:47 PM PDT |
Mitt Romney’s choice of Paul Ryan as his running mate led to a wave of pundit accolades. Now, declared writer after writer, we’re going to have a real debate about the nation’s fiscal future. This was predictable: Never mind the Tea Party, Ryan’s true constituency is the commentariat, which years ago decided that he was the Honest, Serious Conservative, whose proposals deserve respect even if you don’t like him.
But he isn’t and they don’t. Ryanomics is and always has been a con game, although to be fair, it has become even more of a con since Ryan joined the ticket.
Let’s talk about what’s actually in the Ryan plan, and let’s distinguish in particular between actual, specific policy proposals and unsupported assertions. To focus things a bit more, let’s talk — as most budget discussions do — about what’s supposed to happen over the next 10 years.
On the tax side, Ryan proposes big cuts in tax rates on top income brackets and corporations. He has tried to dodge the normal process in which tax proposals are “scored” by independent auditors, but the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center has done the math, and the revenue loss from these cuts comes to $4.3 trillion over the next decade.
On the spending side, Ryan proposes huge cuts in Medicaid, turning it over to the states while sharply reducing funding relative to projections under current policy. That saves around $800 billion. He proposes similar harsh cuts in food stamps, saving a further $130 billion or so, plus a grab-bag of other cuts, such as reduced aid to college students. Let’s be generous and say that all these cuts would save $1 trillion.
On top of this, Ryan includes the $716 billion in Medicare savings that are part of Obamacare, even though he wants to scrap everything else in that act. Despite this, Ryan has now joined Romney in denouncing President Barack Obama for “cutting Medicare”; more on that in a minute.
So if we add up Ryan’s specific proposals, we have $4.3 trillion in tax cuts, partially offset by around $1.7 trillion in spending cuts — with the tax cuts, surprise, disproportionately benefiting the top 1 percent, while the spending cuts would primarily come at the expense of low-income families. Overall, the effect would be to increase the deficit by around two and a half trillion dollars.
Yet Ryan claims to be a deficit hawk. What’s the basis for that claim?
Well, he says that he would offset his tax cuts by “base broadening,” eliminating enough tax deductions to make up the lost revenue. Which deductions would he eliminate? He refuses to say — and realistically, revenue gain on the scale he claims would be virtually impossible.
At the same time, he asserts that he would make huge further cuts in spending. What would he cut? He refuses to say.
What Ryan actually offers, then, are specific proposals that would sharply increase the deficit, plus an assertion that he has secret tax and spending plans that he refuses to share with us, but which will turn his overall plan into deficit reduction.
If this sounds like a joke, that’s because it is. Yet Ryan’s “plan” has been treated with great respect in Washington. He even received an award for fiscal responsibility from three of the leading deficit-scold pressure groups. What’s going on?
The answer, basically, is a triumph of style over substance. Over the longer term, the Ryan plan would end Medicare as we know it — and in Washington, “fiscal responsibility” is often equated with willingness to slash Medicare and Social Security, even if the purported savings would be used to cut taxes on the rich rather than to reduce deficits. Also, self-proclaimed centrists are always looking for conservatives they can praise to showcase their centrism, and Ryan has skillfully played into that weakness, talking a good game even if his numbers don’t add up.
The question now is whether Ryan’s undeserved reputation for honesty and fiscal responsibility can survive his participation in a deeply dishonest and irresponsible presidential campaign.
The first sign of trouble has already surfaced over the issue of Medicare. Romney, in an attempt to repeat the GOP’s successful “death panels” strategy of the 2010 midterms, has been busily attacking the president for the same Medicare savings that are part of the Ryan plan. And Ryan’s response when this was pointed out was incredibly lame: He only included those cuts, he says, because the president put them “in the baseline,” whatever that means. Of course, whatever Ryan’s excuse, the fact is that without those savings his budget becomes even more of a plan to increase, not reduce, the deficit.
So will the choice of Ryan mean a serious campaign? No, because Ryan isn’t a serious man — he just plays one on TV.