IT'S ON!! Mitt Romney will be the Republican
nominee for president, and for once you could not get a clearer choice between
a progressive President Obama and regressive Romney. The terms conservative and liberal have lost any relevance
in political discussions in the 21st century. Despite all the debate in the Republican primaries about
whether or not Romney is a "true" conservative, it is obvious he is a
"true" regressive. He,
and his party, have articulated a vision for the nation which would return us
to the days of the Gilded Age around the turn of the last two centuries. It was the age of a weak federal
government, no income tax, no regulations on industry and an income gap between
the rich and poor remarkably similar to the one we have today between the 1%
and the rest of us. It is the key
question in this election. Which
candidate will do the best job of increasing economic and political progress
and move the nation towards its goal of prosperity for all of its citizens?
In no area is the choice clearer than in the discussion about the future
budget of the federal government.
Obama is proposing a budget which would bring spending down to around
22% of Gross Domestic Product and reduce the deficit over the next 10
years. Romney has embraced the
budget proposed by Rep. Paul Ryan which would reduce government spending to 20%
of GDP, and also reduces the long-term deficit. The devil is in the details, and this is where the choice
becomes clear.
Obama has labeled Ryan's budget, which Romney fully endorses, as
"...thinly veiled social Darwinism." Darwin noted in nature the prime engine of natural selection
is survival of the fittest. Ryan
and Romney want to apply the same principle to the American economy. If you are rich and strong, a part of
that magic 1%, their proposal will make you richer and stronger. Under Ryan's plan, tax cuts for the
rich would put an extra $150,000 a year in their pockets. This would be on top of the enormous
gains they have achieved during the 12 years of the Bush tax cuts. Military spending would be increased,
according to Romney, who has indicated he would be willing to start a war with
Iran while continuing to fight in Afghanistan. Taxes would be cut, military spending would increase and yet
the federal government would reduce its spending to 20% of GDP and reduce the
deficit. This sounds too good to
be true. It sounds like a magic
trick or maybe voodoo. How would
Romney and Ryan pull off this amazing feat?
We can't ask Ryan or even Romney for the answer. When asked what he would cut in order
to achieve the savings he projects, Ryan is mute. While his tax cuts would cost the treasury $4.6 Trillion
(with a T) over 10 years, Ryan says his budget would achieve this enormous
transfer of wealth, without increasing the deficit, by closing tax
loopholes. Which ones would he
eliminate? Perhaps he will end the
mortgage interest deduction or start taxing health benefits employers provide
to employees. He could prohibit
you from deducting what you pay in state income taxes from your federal
burden. He could end the earned
income tax credit which rewards people making under $30,000 for finding a job
and not being stuck on welfare.
However, unfortunately we are left to speculate, because neither Ryan
nor Romney will specify what they would cut to pay for all the largesse they
give to the wealthiest of Americans.
Ryan does give us a hint.
He wants to gut Medicare.
He would dispute my characterization, but it’s accurate. He wants to change Medicare from an
entitlement to a system of vouchers.
You would get a voucher and then you would shop around and use it to buy
health insurance from a private company.
There would be no mandate any company has to insure you. There would be no provision about pre-existing
conditions. There would be no
restrictions on what companies could charge for their plans. Ryan does not explain what would happen
if the cost of the plan exceeds the value of the voucher. What happens if the voucher is not
indexed for inflation? What
happens if a future Ryan or Romney wants to cut taxes for the rich again and
decides to cut the amount of the voucher?
This is where Darwin rears his head. Under a voucher system, you make up the difference between
the value of the voucher and the cost of the health care plan. For the rich and strong, this is
no problem. They can afford
whatever the care costs. For the
rest of us, we would regress to the days before 1965 when seniors were forced
to choose between medical care and pet food for dinner. If you think I'm engaging in hyperbole,
Google the poverty rate for seniors prior to 1965 and read some of the stories
from that era about the Hobson's choices they were forced to make.
This election is the clearest choice yet between a progressive and
regressive candidate in the modern era.
In 2000, Bush tried to prevent this debate by disguising his true
philosophy under the mantle of compassionate conservatism. He was going to cut taxes on the rich,
increase military spending, cut Medicare and Social Security, but he would be
compassionate. The resulting
tsunami of debt, along with an orgy of de-regulation in the financial world,
led to the depression of 2008 and left Obama with a broken country. Since the emergence of Ronald Reagan,
regressives have tried to "trickle down" on 99% of us. It is not lost on anyone, that under
Clinton, after raising taxes on the rich without a single Republican vote, the
nation enjoyed a period of unprecedented prosperity and job creation unknown
for over 25 years.
IT'S ON !! This election
could not be clearer. One side
wants to cut taxes for the rich again while watching the deficit climb and
would gut most of the social programs in a half-hearted attempt to balance the
budget. The other would increase
taxes on the top 1% and reduce the deficit by slowing the cost of medical care
by radically changing the health care system. (if the Supreme Court's five regressive acolytes don't gut
it first) Obama wants to cut
military spending and end wars while Romney is looking for reasons to
fight. The Ryan budget is no
different than the Reagan budget, or the Bush budgets from 2000 to 2008. The results will not be any different
either. Reagan led the depression
of 1983 and raised taxes 8 times to offset his budgets while Bush brought on
the second biggest economic disaster in modern history.
In 2012, voters can vote for Darwin or for progress. The choice can’t be any clearer than
that.....
