Just over the past couple of days, Mitt Romney's campaign has said he's for and against President Obama's Medicare savings. The campaign has also said Romney's Medicare plan is "very similar" and "very different" when compared to Paul Ryan's Medicare plan.
Yesterday, Romney's confusion grew deeper, more offensive, and less coherent.
For those who can't watch clips online, Romney told a group of voters in Ohio:
"One of the things the president did which I find extraordinary, something he never mentioned when he was running for office. You see when he ran for office he said he'd protect Medicare. But did you know that he has taken $716 billion out of the Medicare Trust Fund? He's raided that trust fund. And do you know what he did with it? He's used it to pay for Obama care, a risky, unproven federal government takeover to health care. And if I'm president of the United States, we're putting the $716 billion back."
There's no ambiguity to this: Mitt Romney's lying. Indeed, it's almost hard to count all the lies.
All Obama did was improve Medicare efficiency, improve Medicare's fiscal health, and expand health care benefits for seniors. Romney wants voters to think the president is undermining the Medicare program, but for anyone with even the loosest connection to reality, the argument is idiotic.
Indeed, Obama's Medicare savings are included in Paul Ryan's budget plan. Romney is condemning his own running mate and his own party, working under the assumption that voters are too dumb to know the difference.
But I'm especially amazed by listening to Romney vow, "We're putting the $716 billion back." What does that mean, exactly? It means, in a very literal sense, under Romney's vision, he'll make sure Medicare is less efficient, Medicare's fiscal outlook worse, and bring back higher prescription drug prices and more expensive preventive care for seniors.
That's not my spin on Romney's plan; that's the literal outcome of the policy he's proposing. It's unambiguous.
There's also a remarkable irony to this. Romney is saying he, unlike the president, can make tough calls on issues like entitlements. Except by launching this blisteringly stupid line of attack, Romney is actually proving the opposite point.
As for the campaign's incoherence, Kevin Drum flagged this gem.
Since the announcement of Ryan as Romney's vice-presidential pick, the Republican challenger has faced persistent questioning over where he stands. The Romney team has been left vulnerable, in part because it has been sending out mixed messages.
Romney, in a rare press conference on Monday night in Florida, repeatedly refused to say whether he backed Ryan's Medicare reform plan. Some of advisers have gone on television to say publicly that he wholly and enthusiastically endorsed Ryan's budget proposals and would, if president, have signed it. Others have sought to distance him from it, saying Romney was running on his own plan.
Team Romney had weeks to prepare an argument, knew the questions were coming, but never bothered to come up with a coherent argument.
Complicating matters further, this morning, RNC Chairman Reince Priebus told NBC this morning that the Ryan budget doesn't include Obama's Medicare savings, just one day after the Romney campaign said the exact opposite.
If Romney runs the country the way he's running his campaign, we're all in a lot of trouble.
Update: I just wanted to add an additional question for Romney, should some enterprising reporter on the campaign trail want to ask it: Mr. Romney, how would you pay for the additional $700 billion in spending you're now proposing?
Leave a Comment:
First, a correction to Benen's posting...
"...working
under the assumptionwith the knowledge that voters are too dumb to know the difference."Second, a working assumption of mine is that Mittens and the repukes are counting on the continuence of the Corporately Owned Media not only never providing truth and/or clarity, but the COM will actively join repukes to reinforce 'confusion' among the voters so that voters will think that both sides are equally at fault.
Why they have Sununu all over the TEEVEE Shows explaining it for us in Republican talking point speak with absolutely no pushback (except for Rachel and my new MSM hero Solidad O'Brien)
I wish I could say you were wrong, but this is it exactly - the confusion isn't Willard's, he knows exactly what he's doing: trying to create confusion in the low-information voters who are the prime Rape-Public-CON demographic!
;-(
And the Democrats' response has been what?
The Democrats knew Republicans were going to do this. The Democrats know what the press act is. And they refuse to do anything to combat it.
Well, apparently Democrats have decided they might ought to rouse themselves out of their slumber and think about what needs to be a response to the outrageous lie anybody paying attention knew Romney/Ryan was going to be engaging in wrt the Medicare issue.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/post/the-next-frontier-in-the-case-against-paul-ryan/2012/08/15/9e8399a4-e6fd-11e1-8f62-58260e3940a0_blog.html
You can just feel their irritation at having to break away from their apathy.
Assuaging Obama haters is no effective campaign strategy!
The rest of us are getting more than a glimpse into a campaign seemingly without any reasoned personnel at the helm. Unreasoned folks tend to lose their moral compass, their sense of decent boundaries, and their understanding of shared common sense.
We are witnessing a Romney campaign so unhinged it makes Nixon's '68 law and order campaign and Bush the Elder's '88 Willie Horton campaign look like walks in the park!
American voters do have a very sound choice to make this election year, but one ticket is doing its best to prevent us voters from seeing clearly those differences. Instead of an honest debate, the Republicans seem comfortable in resorting to rope a dope political strategies.
Scary times! -Kevo
...assuming they had any to begin with.
Interesting that both Nixon's and Bush's approaches worked. We are in trouble.
wordtypist is correct.
Why should they have started now?
A question: Romney said that the reductions in Medicare expenditures under the ACA constitute "tak[ing] $716 billion out of the Medicare Trust Fund."
Is that right? I thought the reduction in expenditures actually extended the life of the trust fund?
If I'm right, then Romney's statement is on a par with his claims about defense cuts and trade agreements.
It may come as an earth shattering life moment, but yes Mitt Willard Romney has lied.
I may be confused like others and would like an explanation. It seems there is agreement that PBO found savings in Medicare and used that to finance ACA. So, my questions are:
1) If there were savings to be found, why weren't they kept within the program - one which we all pay into?
2) I don't understand how, taking money out and expanding benefits, prolongs the life.
3) Why is there so much misleading info on the topic? The stated goal is not to affect anyone under 55. Do people really think seniors are so stupid to believe these kill granny arguments?
sick-n-effin - not only has Rawmoney lied, he seems to have you believing it. No matter how many times he's said his first name is "Mitt", his first name is actually Willard or, as I call him: Willard Reversible-Mittens Rawmoney.
Willard even lies about his own name - check out his incredible mendacity at the 1:25 mark!
Tom - it sounds like you are confused. The savings were "found" and thus prolong the life of the program, in the reduction of fees paid to providers, there were no reductions of benefits provided to seniors.
There is so much "misleading info" on this (and many other topics) because the Rape-Public-CONs can't tell the truth about their policies and goals and thereby convince enough people to agree with them - they have to lie to you if they want to get their way. That alone should tell you all you really need to know about the worthiness of their objectives. "The stated goal" - of Rape-Public-CONs - "is not to affect anyone under 55" (another lie, btw). Think about that for a moment. Who's really trying to be divisive?
;-)
Thanks for your responses, but my question is more straighforward.
Romney didn't just say that, under the ACA, the government will spend $716 billion less on Medicare. He said that Obama's plan takes $716 billion out of the Medicare Trust Fund.
Those are two different things. What Romney said could be true--that is, Obama's plan could both spend less and reduce the Trust Fund by the amount of the reduced savings--but I don't know if it is.
Can anyone answer this/
Gee Mitt, I'll bet all those disposable people whose retirement you savaged at Bain thought their money was in a trust fund as well. Oh that's right, you stuck the government with the tab for your greed.
Excellent points, Benen - further, the $716 Billion in Medicare savings come as part of the Affordable Care Act. So how does Romney/Ryan plan to both repeal the ACA and keep the $716 Billion in savings?
The Washington Post has an excellent, plain English primer on the nature of the "Medicare cuts," with pie chart and all:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/08/14/romneys-right-obamacare-cuts-medicare-by-716-billion-heres-how/
Mittens campaign has dealt in lies since he started running (again) for office! The corporate owned lame-stream media "journalists" are too lazy & refuse to ask appropriate questions and follow-up questions! The sheeple have been so dumbed down that they can't even tell that they're being lied to anymore; and a percentage of the sheeple don't care they just want the "White House" to have a "white guy" as it's occupant - even if that "white guy" is a spineless, morally bereft, lying little weasel that has no other agenda than the corporate take-over of our democracy!
I'm from there! And Romney was actually wasting his time campaigning in most of Southeastern Ohio and most of it is blood red. However I do think that Mitt is going to have problems in the area because he is just too "off".
There used to be a Congressman from this district named Bob McEwen (Spelling ?) and he eventually became know as "Plastic Mac" or Ken (from Barbie fame), and Mitt is slowly earning that same moniker. One thing interesting I have heard about Mr. McEwen is that he once volunteered to do a bike ride for charity then was caught getting into a van along with his bike and driven around for a while and dropped off about a mile from the finish.
Anyways Mitt will win Jackson County and it will be close in Ross County and Athens County. But nearly all of the other counties in Southeastern Ohio will go Red. And by the way all those Red counties have very "liberal" extended voting availability.
This is COMPLETELY off topic and if I could find a better place to put it I would. So feel free to move it or delete it.
I really think the media missed something BIG that was said by both Mitt Romney And Paul Ryan, during the announcement that Paul Ryan would be Mitt's running mate.
Here's what I saw Saturday during the Ryan VP announcement and maybe I'm the only one that wonders about it, but...
Both Romney & Ryan used the term "increase the take home pay of the middle class" or something to that effect, but the term "Increase Your Take Home Pay" was used by both. I didn't hear Governor McDonnell but wouldn't be surprised if he used it too.
What I want to know is, what that REALLY means in "Romneyesse". I would just about bet it means they are only talking about tax cuts, instead of increasing your REAL, before tax wages, which would indeed "Increase your take home pay" and at the same time OVERWHELMINGLY benefit those top 1 or 2 "percenters" at the expense of the 98 percenters. Now I think that most of us already know that Mitt's main concern is going to be providing an atmosphere of opulence and luxury and no or low taxes for his class
of people and his country and yacht club buddies.
What does it say for a campaign that launches it's VP pick where both Mitt Romney AND Paul Ryan promised to "INCREASE YOUR TAKE HOME PAY" while saying NOTHING about REAL WAGES? This sure sounds like code for MORE and bigger tax cuts that allow those at the top of the money food chain to pay even less in taxes.
Like I said maybe I heard it differently, but I heard nothing about ACTUALLY increasing the wages of middle class workers. I believe using the phrase "INCREASE YOUR TAKE HOME PAY" was a wink and a nod to those in top 1% or 2% of earners, that live off investments and GET AWAY WITH NEVER PAYING INCOME TAX. And that fact is very, VERY telling.
I could be wrong but to roll out your VP pick talking about "increasing take home pay" and not increasing REAL wages, is more a LIE of omission than a campaign PROMISE, or something to look forward to!
PLEASE IF SOMEONE IN THE MEDIA HAPPENS TO READ THIS, WILL YOU PLEASE ASK SOMEONE FROM THE ROMNEY CAMPAIGN WHY THEY USED "INCREASING YOUR TAKE HOME PAY" instead of INCREASING THE WAGES OF THE MIDDLE CLASS?
The error is in assuming "we are putting the $716 billion back" means back into medicare. I think he means that money goes back to corporations and the very wealthy.
You are exactly right! The money Mitt takes from Medicare goes to allowing for more and bigger tax cuts to those at the top. While the money Obama takes actually goes back into health care.
Like I mentioned above, why would ANYONE running for President or Vice President say "Increase Your Take Home Pay" if they weren't planning for MORE and BIGGER tax cuts. The phrase "increase your take home pay" CAN NOT MEAN ANYTHING else other than more tax cuts, and both Romney and Ryan used that phrase on Saturday (8/11/2012) during the Ryan announcement.
How stupid does the Romney/Ryan Campaign, or for that matter the GOP think the American people are? Granted there are a few REALLY dumb folks out there, but I believe that, the majority of the electorate actually do take at least a little time to check out the candidates and then decide. I know... I know... I can hear the people yelling at their computer screens "You have far too much faith in your fellow Americans", but I really do believe that most people that are going to take the time to vote are also going to, at a minimum, learn the candidates names and one or two things about each guy.
But I could be wrong...
You have far too much faith in your fellow Americans.
if he wasn't lying, we wouldn't know he was breathing
"My commitment is, if I become president, I'm going to restore that $716 billion to the Medicare trust fund.” -Romney on CBS
This is just supremely ignorant of how the trust funds work and the impact of a repeal of the PPACA on outlays and revenues
Repealing the PPACA spending reductions actually increases costs for the HI trust fund. The cbo and cms confirm that the reduced payments in the PPACA actually extend the HI and SMI trust funds. This is simple, if cms pays less each year to hospitals and doctor for the same services then the projected yearly deficits incured (the difference between payroll taxes and premiums compared to expenses) will be reduced and the result is that less money would be drawn from the HI and SMI trust funds each year.
Romney’s claim to “restore” money to the HI trust fund is simply ignorant. How would increasing payments to hospitals allow romney to restore money to the fund?? Instead of restoring money to the HI trust fund, the increased payments resulting from the romney policy would actually drain the trust fund more quickly. Payments would from the HI trust fund would increase by $517bil while a repeal of the PPACA would eliminate additional revenues dedicated to the HI trust fund totaling $318bil. Increasing payments to hospitals plus eliminating additional revenue would exhaust the HI trust fund in 2016 - eight years earlier than current estimates - while costing an additional 27bil in general fund revenues. Just eliminating the additional revenue gain from the HI tax on employers would exhaust the HI trust fund by 2018, six years earlier than current estimates. The cbo estimates that the off-budget costs - meaning the total costs to the hi, smi, and postal trust funds - would be $95bil over 10 years.
Even if the exchange subsidies were used to “restore” the trust fund, the net impact of romney’s policies would drain the fund by $38bil more than current law from 2013-2022.
Romney could strenghten the HI trust fund by eliminating PPACA provisions related to medicaid and chip, but he would need to admit that he was “robing” from the poor, including the elderly poor, to give to middle-class and wealthy seniors.
Addendum: to those who make the “double counting” claim, there is no double counting because the HI trust fund is not structure the same as the surplus in the oasdi trust fund. The social security is a surplus intented to offset increased outlays to babyboomers. The HI trust fund receives revenues mostly from a dedicated portion of the payroll tax. These revenue are reserved for payments to hospitals. The HI trust fund is structured to hold a one year cushion for these estimated hospital payments. The fund will hold assests of $215bil at the end of the year.
There is lots of stuff out there indicating that Obama lied.
http://www.nationalreview.com/media/video/313973
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2009/12/cbo-democrats-double-counting-medicare-savings/32538/
http://www.forbes.com/sites/aroy/2012/04/10/medicare-trustee-obamacare-will-increase-the-deficit-by-as-much-as-527-billion/
http://fixhealthcarepolicy.com/tag/congressional-budget-office/
@Mary Ok --
Re: Your first link - according to that logic, Paul Ryan also "raids" Medicare - as he includes the very same Medicare cost savings in his "plan." The difference - Obama cuts costs from perennially bloated Medicare billings and pours them back into Medicare; Ryan tries to have his cake and eat it, too - he repeals "Obamacare," which the Medicare cost savings are part-and-parcel of, yet he also steals the "$716 Billion" in savings from the Affordable Care Act and applies them towards his so-called plan. How? Magical thinking.
2) Here's the CBO caution about "double counting," which does not impact their projection that the ACA still extends the life of Medicare beyond the projected original year of 2019 through to 2029 - start at PDF Page #14 for the details:
http://www.ncsl.org/documents/health/MCprogChgs.pdf
3) A link that refutes the $700 Billion Lie from Romney/Ryan, complete with pie chart:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/08/14/romneys-right-obamacare-cuts-medicare-by-716-billion-heres-how/
To the community at large - observe how "concern trolls" try to get the first and last word on high-profile boards. Please, join me in keeping our boards honest!
I watched Rachel head off FiFi at the pass tonight! Thank you Rachel for continuing to be out in front shining the light into the fog.
The double counting of Medicare savings has been an issue long before Romney was the nominee. This was addressed by Ryan directly to Obama in the health care summit. He never did respond. Obama did at least two interviews that I found where he has been asked about Medicare savings paying for ACA. The savings has always been used to make ACA deficit neutral and not to extending the life of Medicare. Since in the opinion of the latest Medicare Trustee, the savings can not be double counted, then ACA blows a hole in the budget.
Unfortunately I quit reading or listening to Ezra Klein a long time ago. He is too partisan to be taken seriously. I provided links from the Medicare Trustees and the CBO. .
You neglected to comment on the 2009 video in which Obama admits he is using Medicare savings to pay for Obamacare.
Don't know how Medicare can be bloated if it is going bankrupt.
Frankly, I haven't studied the ins and outs of Ryan's budget. It's s proposal that may or may not be enacted. However, if the 716 billion in savings are real, and they can't be applied to Obamacare, because it is repealed, then the 716 billion obviously is returned to the Trust Fund, which according to one of the articles I posted, can't by law be transferred out anyway, hence the allegation of double counting.
This is the section from your report that indicates you can use the savings for deficit reduction or to extend the life of the trust find, but not both.
CBO also cautions against combining trust fund accounting conventions with budget accounting rules. Reductions in Medicare expenditures can be used to extend the solvency of the HI trust fund or used to offset costs associated with expansion of health insurance coverage; using both accounting methods at the same time would result in double-counting a large share of those savings.
Here is the you tube where Ryan addressed all of the gimmicks in the CBO scoring of ACA, including the Medicare savings, to Obama. This is an old issue and some of us were paying attention. Obama did not treat this seriously when he should have, and now it's an election issue.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-lxg7XrF6I&feature=youtube_gdata_player
Obama said he would not sign ACA unless it was deficit neutral and it was deficit neutral only because he applied Medicare savings to the program. The only way he could apply those savings to extend the life of the trust fund was to count them twice.
You are calling it a Romney/Ryan lie, but as the video shows, it was addressed to Obama directly. He had the opportunity to address it and he did not. He either didn't understand it or he did not care if he blew the budget or bankrupted Medicare. What other conclusions can be drawn?
Anyone want to guess how many l-i-e-s Obama has spouted ?!?!
.
It was all so much clearer four years ago with "hope and change". The reason the $716 billion is difficult to pin down is that it represents imaginary "savings" to be found by lowering payments to medical providers and the de rigueur elimination of waste and fraud. Mostly it will end the Medicare Advantage programs that are popular with almost 30% of seniors. The second mode of potential savings is the IPAB which is authorized to manipulate and change delivery and payment for services using cost and age as criteria. The difference with ACA is that the changes will begin for current seniors and the "savings" will not stay in the trust fund but rather will flow into the accounting morass to pay subsidizes to others. Ryan's would change nothing for 10 years, leave any savings in the trust fund, and then offer regular Medicare with an option for a subsidized plan offering the same level of services. Most don't realize that the coverage from Part A and B is limited and a separate private insurance plan is needed for Medigap and Part D. Intelligently combining all 4 parts could result in savings. Politico's biggest lie of 2011 was that Ryan "would end Medicare". Personally, I don't think ACA or Ryan have solved the long term problems, but they never will be until the political spin and LIES stop. The most egregious flaw with ACA is that it did not first address getting medical access to those most in need. In fact the last step was dumping the neediest into the failing Medicaid program. It now seems many will not qualify for subsidies or Medicaid. But I'm sure the left believes "free" birth control pills and insurance for 21-26 year olds was much more crucial!!!! I am disgusted with all the spin on this major issue. Obama has been lying about the terms and cost of ACA from the beginning. At least Ryan is attacking the problem with truth.