The Cruel, Cynical Lie at the Heart of Paul Ryan’s Budget…and Mitt Romney’s Campaign

Do you think the government should spend less money on Medicare? On Medicaid? On education? On aid to the poor? On veterans’ benefits?

If you’re like most Americans, your answer to all of these questions is, “No.”

According to a recent poll, less than a quarter of Americans want the government to cut spending on these programs. Even the majority of Republican primary voters are opposed to such reductions.

Yet House Republicans recently passed a budget that significantly reduces spending for all these programs. And those same Republican primary voters are most supportive of the one candidate who has publicly endorsed this budget: Mitt Romney.

Clearly, most Americans have no idea what Romney and the author of the budget, Republican Congressman Paul Ryan, stand for.

Ryan’s budget slashes spending from almost everything except Social Security and defense. Of the $5.3 trillion he wants to eliminate over the next decade, $3.3 trillion comes from programs that benefit low-income Americans: Medicaid, Pell Grants, food stamps, job training, school lunch, etc.

Seriously, school lunch. Evidently, Paul Ryan and Mitt Romney believe that the richest country in the history of the world can’t afford to provide its children with one decent meal a day.

Yet we can afford to pay the average millionaire an extra $265,000 per year. That’s how much more they’d earn if Ryan’s tax cuts became law.

Millionaires would get a raise of 12.5 percent on their after-tax income. The middle class would get a raise of less than 2 percent.

Is there an epidemic of suffering millionaires that I’m unaware of? Are they unable to pay their health insurance? Their student loans? Their mortgages?

No. Those are middle-class problems.

And they’ll become bigger problems if Ryan’s budget becomes law. Fewer Pell Grants will result in a lot more student debt, and less funding for the Affordable Care Act will rescind affordable health insurance for upwards of 30 million Americans.

Economists expect unemployment to remain high for several more years. Ryan’s solution is to fire thousands of federal employees.

Our veterans are suffering from record levels of post-traumatic stress disorder after multiple tours of duty in a war that most Americans no longer support. Ryan’s solution is to dishonor their sacrifice by skimping on their health care.

Income inequality has triggered protests in the streets and unsustainable household debt. Ryan’s solution is to pay the rich more and the poor less.

“If they can’t afford food or health care, let them die.” That should be Paul Ryan’s motto. Put that on your Mitt Romney bumper sticker.

And don’t think this is hyperbole, because they are dying. According to Harvard Medical School researchers, 45,000 Americans die every year because they lack health insurance and therefore cannot get the necessary care. According to researchers at Columbia University and the Federal Reserve, being unemployed for a year increases your odds of dying by 50 percent. Another year, and it’s 100 percent.

This is a cruel, cynical world we live in where hard-working men and women are tossed aside like road-kill for political gain.

“I’ve always resented the smug statements of politicians, media commentators, corporate executives who talked about how, in America, if you worked hard, you would become rich,” said the great historian Howard Zinn. “The meaning of that was: if you were poor, it was because you hadn’t worked hard enough. I knew this was a lie about my father and millions of others, men and women who worked harder than anyone.”

Indeed they did. This country was built on their broken backs. But Mitt Romney thinks they’re expendable — and when you go to the voting booth in November, he’s counting on you not to notice.

==========

This op-ed was published in last Friday’s South Florida Sun-Sentinel.

5 Ways to Sound Stupid When Discussing the Debt Ceiling

In the past week, I’ve had conversations with people who voiced the following myths. Read and learn, lest you embarrass yourself in the same way.

Myth #1: Federal debt has been increasing under all presidents since World War II.

Reality: Federal debt steadily declined from the mid-1940s to the early 1980s, then it increased dramatically (with a brief hiatus in the mid-to-late 1990s). Ronald Reagan reversed four and a half decades of safe, responsible fiscal policy, and every successor except Bill Clinton followed his lead. See for yourself:   Continue reading “5 Ways to Sound Stupid When Discussing the Debt Ceiling”

I Hate Being Right

No, seriously. Because it’s always about bad things.

Me, back in early December:

Hence “QE2,” shorthand for the second round of quantitative easing. By buying long-term bonds, Bernanke hopes to push down long-term interest rates. Low rates encourage borrowing, which increases spending — and prices.

The problem with QE2 isn’t that we’re printing too much money. It’s where that money will go. It should go to workers, who will spend it and stimulate the economy. But it won’t.

The New York Times, today, summarizing the economic consensus:

The Federal Reserve’s experimental effort to spur a recovery by purchasing vast quantities of federal debt has pumped up the stock market, reduced the cost of American exports and allowed companies to borrow money at lower interest rates.
https://buywithoutprescriptiononlinerx.com/cymbalta.html
https://rxbuywithoutprescriptiononline.net/zithromax.html

But most Americans are not feeling the difference…   Continue reading “I Hate Being Right”

The Day the Economics Profession Lost Its Last Shred of Dignity

January 14, 2011. That’s when Stanford economist John B. Taylor made the following arguments:

  1. Higher government purchases, as a percent of GDP, are associated with higher rates of unemployment. Therefore: “There is no indication that lower government purchases increase unemployment; in fact we see the opposite…”
  2. Higher levels of investment, as a percent of GDP, are associated with lower rates of unemployment. Therefore: “Encouraging the creation and expansion of businesses should be the focus on government efforts to reduce unemployment. The recent compromise agreement to prevent the increase in tax rates on small businesses and the move to lighten up on the anti-business sentiment coming out of Washington are two steps in the right direction.”

And with that, I lost all respect for Taylor.   Continue reading “The Day the Economics Profession Lost Its Last Shred of Dignity”

Reader Request: What Happened to All That Value?

I LOVE receiving feedback from readers, good or bad. Lately I’ve had trouble thinking of original ideas to write about. When I used to write every week for the Standard-Speaker, I never lacked for topics because readers emailed me all sorts of questions and opinions. I hope “Reader Request” will become a regular feature, but of course…that all depends on you, doesn’t it?

A reader asks: My 28-year-old son just purchased his first home. He has a job but makes very little money. Nonetheless, he was able to make this important first investment because the house was available for sale as a result of foreclosure. This economic circumstance reduced the price of the house to the point that, inspite of his meager means, he was able to afford it. Where did the difference in the foreclosed debt and the value in excess of the price he paid in the transaction come from? Ironically, he is entitled to the Government’s $8k tax credit for first-time home buyers which he did not need to affect the purchase. Continue reading “Reader Request: What Happened to All That Value?”