Tag Archives: Mitt

The Crazy Eights gathered again to “debate” one another and to try to outdo each other on who could tell the biggest fabrication; this time the hopefuls sat around a great big dinner table and pounded and pontificated while Charlie Rose, who turned in an abysmal performance as moderator, tried to keep it going. As debates go, this was primarily a yawner – but there were some moments.

The Republican Tea Party (GOTP) contestants were not exactly on “accurate” on their so-called facts, as was evidenced in the oft repeated attacks on how the poor wealthy job creators were over burdened with regulations. Calls of, “REPEAL, REPEAL, REPEAL!” rang through the hall.

Mittens threw down on this topic claiming, “All of the Obama regulations, we say no. It costs jobs.”

Reverend Rick’s thoughts were that regulations “are strangling the American entrepreneurship out there.”

While Ricky “the Ric” Santorum pleaded from somewhere near the bottom of the polls that if elected he’d, “Repeal every regulation the Obama administration put in place.”

Unfortunately for these guys the United States Department of Labor data clearly shows only a very – and I do mean very – small percentage of companies experiencing large layoffs cite government regulation as the reason. In fact – a word the GOTP seldom uses – since President Obama took office, there’s been just two-tenths of 1 percent of layoffs claimed to have been due to government regulation.

Mittens, Perry and Santorum all know this, and yet it’s popular with the far right to blame too much government for the economic fact consumers just aren’t buying enough of what’s being manufactured. This is not economic rocket science.

On the popular Tea Party subject of banging ObamaCare, Michele “Krazy” Bachmann took a swing at the issue declaring, “We have a big problem today when it comes to Medicare, because we know that nine years from now, the Medicare hospital Part B Trust Fund is going to be dead flat broke.” She also charged that “President Obama plans for Medicare to collapse, and instead everyone will be pushed into Obamacare.”

First, Krazy doesn’t seem to know any more about Medicare than she does about who was born in her hometown.

Second, Part B is not for hospital payments, it’s for outpatient care, and on top of that, it’s pretty much impossible for Part B to go broke because it’s financed by the federal government’s general fund and by beneficiary premiums.

Third, Part A is the hospital trust fund, and it’s projected to become insolvent in 2024, 13 years in the future, not the nine Krazy is claiming, and even then it would be able to pay 90 percent of its obligations, so it’s not now and never will be “dead flat broke.”

Furthermore there’s absolutely no evidence – as in zero – to support Krazy’s charge the President is planning for Medicare to collapse; his health care law envisions nothing like that. In fact, a Republican budget – which Krazy voted for – would make far larger changes to the program for the next generation, converting it to a voucher-like system.

When taxes were thrown into the mix Herman “flavor of the week” Cain touted his 9-9-9 plan so often it sounded like a Dominoes commercial. He claimed his plan is a “bold” overhaul of the tax code that would get the economy back on track, and be embraced by the nation.

While no one can argue Cain’s plan is audacious, it’s unlikely that the millions of American families who would face significant tax increases (low and middle class) will embrace it. No doubt whatsoever that the wealthy (Romney, Cain, Huntsman etc) would probably love it because they would get big tax cuts.

The low and middle class would see their taxes go up under Cain’s plan, while the wealthy would get tax breaks. Perfect plan if you’re a rich former pizza executive.

Cain’s plan would eliminate the payroll taxes funding Social Security and Medicare, essentially throwing the poor and the elderly under the bus – or pizza delivery car – while replacing the progressive federal income tax with a flat 9 percent tax on income. He’d lower the corporate income tax from 35 percent to 9 percent, and impose a new 9 percent national sales tax. All of which would significantly lower tax revenues, requiring severe cuts to domestic social programs at the same time giving significant breaks to the wealthiest 2% – again.

These are just three more very viable reasons why voting for any of these so-called candidates is a bad idea; either they’re deliberately manipulating facts – lying – or they’re woefully ignorant of reality. Now, I may argue the former is probably true for Romney and Huntsman, for the rest the latter is no doubt the real deal.