Mitt Romney: $4M Tax Cut for Himself, Doesn’t Give a Damn About the Poor

Mitt Romney Lies

Mitt Romney wants to be President of the United States. But if you’re poor, he doesn’t want to be your President. He says you have a “safety net” and don’t need his help.

Looking at Romney‘s budget proposal if he were to elected President, whatever “safety net” the poor do have in place would be cut to shreds by Mitt Romney.

What Would These Cuts Mean for Specific Programs?

Social Security would be cut $161 billion in 2016 alone and $1.5 trillion over the 2014-2021 period.
Cutting Social Security benefits by 17 percent would reduce the average monthly retirement benefit from $1,230 to $1,020 and push more than 2.6 million additional people into poverty.[7]

About Social Security, Governor Romney said in a debate on January 17, “First of all, for the people who are already retired or 55 years of age or older, nothing changes.”[8] If Social Security were largely or entirely spared from cuts over the next ten years, as this statement suggests, then all other nondefense programs would have to be cut by an average of 24 percent, or about one-quarter. For example:

Medicare would be cut by $153 billion in 2016 and $1.4 trillion through 2021. Achieving cuts of this size solely through reducing payments to hospitals, physicians, and other health care providers would threaten beneficiaries’ access to care. Thus, beneficiaries would almost certainly face large increases in premiums and cost-sharing charges.

Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) would face cumulative cuts of $946 billion through 2021. Repealing the coverage expansions of the 2010 health reform legislation, as Governor Romney has proposed, would achieve more than the necessary savings. [9] But it would leave 34 million people uninsured who would have gained coverage under health reform.[10]

Cuts in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, formerly known as the Food Stamp Program) would throw 10 million low-income people off the benefit rolls, cut benefits by thousands of dollars a year, or some combination of the two. These cuts would primarily affect very-low-income families with children, seniors, and people with disabilities.[11]

Compensation payments for disabled veterans (which average less than $13,000 a year) would be cut by one-fourth, as would pensions for low-income veterans (which average about $11,000 a year) and Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits for poor aged and disabled individuals (which average about $6,000 a year and leave poor elderly and disabled people far below the poverty line).

Nondefense discretionary spending would be cut by $134 billion in 2016 and $1.2 trillion through 2021, in addition to the cut of 17 percent, or $971 billion over ten years, already in law as a result of the Budget Control Act and the appropriations bills passed during 2011. [12] (This category of the budget covers a wide variety of public services and most of the day-to-day functions of the federal government, such as aid to elementary and secondary education, veterans’ health care, law enforcement, national parks, environmental protection, and biomedical and scientific research.) As a share of the economy, nondefense discretionary spending would shrink to 2.2 percent of GDP by 2016 and 1.7 percent of GDP by 2021. In contrast, spending for this category has averaged 3.7 percent of GDP over the past 30 years and has never gone below 3.2 percent of GDP during this period. Source:

Of course, Mitt Romney says he didn’t really mean that he was not concerned about the poor and that the statement was “taken out of context,” but Romney doesn’t seem to be able to keep his stories straight from day to day.

First of all, just a few days ago, Mr. Romney was denying that the very programs he now says take care of the poor actually provide any significant help. On Jan. 22, he asserted that safety-net programs — yes, he specifically used that term — have “massive overhead,” and that because of the cost of a huge bureaucracy “very little of the money that’s actually needed by those that really need help, those that can’t care for themselves, actually reaches them.”

This claim, like much of what Mr. Romney says, was completely false: U.S. poverty programs have nothing like as much bureaucracy and overhead as, say, private health insurance companies. As the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities has documented, between 90 percent and 99 percent of the dollars allocated to safety-net programs do, in fact, reach the beneficiaries. But the dishonesty of his initial claim aside, how could a candidate declare that safety-net programs do no good and declare only 10 days later that those programs take such good care of the poor that he feels no concern for their welfare? New York Times

In his I don’t give a damn about the poor statement, he also said he didn’t care about the wealthy either. They’re doing alright so they don’t really need his help, right?

Mitt Romney‘s big economic plan for the US should he become President of the US, benefits the wealthiest people in the country at the expense of the poorest. He would be “the President” for the wealthiest 1% of Americans. This elitist candidate proposes to give himself a $4M tax cut. The middle class and the poor will be paying for that through taxes on the Middle Class and cutting the very programs that he calls a “safety net” for the poor.

Today, Citizens for Tax Justice calculated Romney’s personal windfall from his own plan. The result: a 40 percent tax cut for Romney. Greg Sargent at the Washington Post explains what would happen under current law (i.e. the Bush tax cuts expire and a new tax on investments included in the Affordable Care Act is maintained) versus Romney’s own plan:

Under that regime, Romney would pay an overall tax rate of around 24 percent.

The group then calculated what Romney would pay if his own plan passed. That is, if you kept the Bush tax cuts in place, including keeping the capital gains tax at 15 percent, and scrapped the Medicare tax, as Romney wants to do.

Under that system, Romney would pay a rate of a little under 15 percent — because virtually all his income is from capital gains and dividends.

The group calculates that this means Romney’s plan would give him a tax cut of more than 40 percent.

“This doesn’t even include Romney’s proposal to cut corporate taxes from 35 percent to 25 percent, which would primarily benefit wealthy shareholders like himself,” Robert McIntyre, the director of Citizens for Tax Justice, tells me. Think Progress

Romney also grossly underestimates the number of poor people that he doesn’t care about.

Well, hate to break it to you, Mitt, but there’s a whole lot more poor people in America to be “not concerned about” than that—a lot more. Data released by the U.S. Census Bureau back in September showed that just over 46 million Americans—or 15.1 percent of the population—lived below the official poverty line ($11,100 for an individual, $22,300 for a family of four).

Nothing to worry about—not, at least, if you’re running for the GOP nomination—but 46 million people living in poverty is the highest figure reached in the 52 years the Census Bureau has been publishing such data. And those figures are sure to go up, economists say, now that the federal stimulus has pretty much run its course and with states and municipalities enacting deep cuts to social programs that were helping to prop up those at the bottom. The Daily Beast

The “Party of the Rich” would gut both the middle class and the poor, while funneling even greater wealth to the country’s wealthiest people, creating an even greater gap between the classes in the US. All of the republican candidates have put forth plans with Draconian cuts for the poor and middle class and allow the wealthy to further mass immense wealth.

If anyone doubts his concern for the jobless in this country, let me assure you that there would be far more jobless if he were President. Quite simply, he doesn’t give a damn about the poor and his own home state doesn’t want him to be the Republican candidate for President.

Grand Rapids, Michigan (CNN) — One very clear reason why Mitt Romney is far from a lock to win the Michigan primary, despite his ties to the state, is that he’s not really tied to the state.

He was born here, he lived here. But he’s not family. Not anymore.

That’s why the characterization of Rick Santorum polling well in Romney‘s backyard is a bit misguided. The truth is, many of us disowned that two-faced liar years ago. We remember how, back in 2008, Romney came home promising to do all he could to save the auto industry. And we believed him and voted for him and he won the primary here. Then, after he dropped out of the race, he wrote a New York Times op-ed that carried the headline “Let Detroit Go Bankrupt.”

The opening sentence: “If General Motors, Ford and Chrysler get the bailout that their chief executives asked for yesterday, you can kiss the American automotive industry goodbye.”

Romney’s Bain Capital Made Billions While Bankrupting Nearly One-Quarter Of The Companies It Invested In

Bain’s modus operandi was to invest in companies, leverage them up with debt, and then sell them off for scrap, allowing Bain’s investors to walk away with huge profits while the companies in which Bain invested wound up in bankruptcy, laying off workers and reneging on benefits.

Last week, Reuters profiled one company, Worldwide Grinding Systems, that went belly up after Bain invested in it. The company not only lost 750 jobs, but the federal government had to come in to bail out its pension fund, while Bain walked away with millions in profits.

And according to an analysis by the Wall Street Journal, this was far from an isolated incident. In fact, 22 percent of the companies in which Bain invested wound up either in bankruptcy or shutting their doors entirely, while Bain itself has made billions of dollars for its investors:

The Wall Street Journal, aiming for a comprehensive assessment, examined 77 businesses Bain invested in while Mr. Romney led the firm from its 1984 start until early 1999, to see how they fared during Bain’s involvement and shortly afterward.

Among the findings: 22% either filed for bankruptcy reorganization or closed their doors by the end of the eighth year after Bain first invested, sometimes with substantial job losses. An additional 8% ran into so much trouble that all of the money Bain invested was lost. […]

The Journal analysis shows that in total, Bain produced about $2.5 billion in gains for its investors in the 77 deals, on about $1.1 billion invested. Overall, Bain recorded roughly 50% to 80% annual gains in this period, which experts said was among the best track records for buyout firms in that era.

Adding insult to injury, Bain would hide its profits in tax havens, not even paying the rate it was supposed to on the profits it made laying off workers.
“This material was created by the Center for American Progress Action Fund

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...
Be Sociable, Share!

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

No comments yet.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Get Adobe Flash player