Analysis

Fact Check: Vice Presidential Debate


CHICAGO–(ENEWSPF)–October 12, 2012.

FACT CHECK: Romney’s 5 Point Plan Would Not Create Jobs

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]

FACT CHECK: Ryan Requested Stimulus Funds for His District

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]

FACT CHECK: President Obama’s Medicare Savings Were Included In The Ryan Budget That Romney Promised

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]

FACT CHECK: Romney-Ryan Medicare Voucher Plan Is Extreme, Not Bipartisan

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]

FACT CHECK: Romney Would Raise Taxes on Middle Class Families To Pay For Tax Cuts For The Wealthy

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]

FACT CHECK: Ryan Didn’t Tell The Truth About Romney’s Military Spending Increases

Struggling to cope with detailed questions about Mitt Romney’s policies, Congressman Ryan just denied that the Romney-Ryan ticket is proposing an increase in defense spending. He’s not telling the truth – Mitt Romney has repeatedly proposed increasing our defense spending by $2 trillion. But what Romney or Ryan aren’t saying is that we can’t afford the $2 trillion more they’re committing to spend and that the Pentagon’s not even asking for.

ROMNEY WANTS $2 TRILLION IN NEW MILITARY SPENDING THAT THE MILITARY HASN’T ASKED FOR AND HE HASN’T PAID FOR

Business Insider: “Romney Wants To Spend $2 Trillion On The Military It Hasn’t Even Asked For” [Business Insider, 10/9/12]

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]

Think Progress: “Even His Own Top Foreign Policy Aides Can’t Explain How The Republican Nominee Would Pay For Such A Massive, And Completely Unnecessary, Increase In Military Spending.” [Think Progress, 10/4/12]

ROMNEY HAS BEEN CRITICIZED FOR HIS UNREALISTIC DEFENSE SPENDING PLANS WITH ARBITRARY GOALS

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]

  • Defense Budget Analyst, Todd Harrison On Romney’s Plan To Increase Defense Spending: “What Is The Threat That Requires More Spending? That Is What They Need To Articulate.” [Defense News, 6/17/12]

Source: http://www.barackobama.com

 


ARCHIVES