Completely Wrong

It's time to resurrect this blog. Actually, it's way past time, but that's for another post.

This week, Mitt Romney told us he was "Completely Wrong".. But what was he completely wrong about? Was it his statement about his opinion about the 47%, or was it that he was wrong about defending that statement repeatedly in the press once the quote was published? Once we get onto the subject of Mitt being "Completely Wrong" there is a laundry list of things he is completely wrong about.

Romney's tax plan is "Completely Wrong"
We all know that the math doesn't add up without a net increase in taxes for people in the $100k to $200k income bracket. But even if it is as he claims and is "revenue neutral", it does nothing to reduce the deficit. Romney's plan for deficit reduction can only come from two sources; deep cuts to government spending, and growth of the tax base (taxing more people). Let's look at those two options. Romney has already said that he proposes INCREASING military spending by 2 Trillion dollars, so that takes military spending off the table. What's left? To make a significant impact, he would have to decimate domestic spending. Pretty much all government programs you can think of, and most significantly, Medicare would face drastic cuts. To grow the tax base, Romney says that his tax cuts will spur job creation. This new iteration of "trickle down economics" is already proven not to create jobs. It was tried by Ronald Reagan and failed, and again by George W. Bush with similar failure. In fact, the combination of tax cuts and two unfunded wars is what has us in deficit crises right now. What few private sector jobs that might be created through tax policy will be more than offset by large reductions in government jobs as a result of the severe cuts to domestic programs. Cutting those domestic programs will also hurt private employers related to those programs. Romney's Foreign Policy agenda is Completely Wrong Mitt Romney argues that US foreign policy needs better Leadership. Following behind Netan-Ya-Hoo's belligerent attempt to goad the US into war with Iran isn't Leadership. Carrying out the Neo-Con agenda under the guise of "unconditionally supporting Israel" is a foolish folly. The war in Iraq destabilized the region, allowing Iran to focus on pursuing it's own agenda without the counterbalance of a strong Iraq to keep it at bay. Now the same 'big stick' approach to foreign policy will have us doing the same to Iran? The Neo-Con world domination agenda full steam ahead. Then there is the Romney statement that Russia is our biggest threat. Really? Russia? Not a nuclear China, nor North Korea with it's nuclear capable ICBMs, and it's willingness to sell arms to the highest bidder? Not Pakistan, another nuclear country with an unstable government that allows extremist Taliban to take over whole regions of the country and harbored Bin Laden for years? Not Al Qaeda? Not Iran? Really?
The cold war is over Mitt. I think you missed something.


Romney's Health Care Plan is "Completely Wrong"
First, he's for it, then he's against it, now he's against it, but wants to replace it (because some parts really are OK). But do it with block grants to states, so there will be another layer of bureaucracy, because Federal programs are bad but state programs are good? He says his plan will cover Pre-existing conditions, but how? If the plans are left up to the states, and there is no mandate, and funding is limited, who is to say if the "good parts" will be implemented and how? The reality is, his plan will not provide coverage for millions of Americans that can't obtain insurance because of Pre-Existing conditions. He's said, in public interviews, that a 45 year old man with a pre-existing heart condition couldn't get insurance unless he'd gotten it when he was healthy, and had continuous coverage since then. Huh? That person doesn't need a new health plan - they have one that is providing continuous coverage already. The whole problem in this country is providing coverage for people just like that 45 year old man. People, and families who, usually through no fault of their own, can't get, or lost, or can't afford, health insurance. That's the entire purpose of the Affordable Care Act (ObamaCare). Another purpose is to provide coverage for children, especially those born with medical issues. Another problem with Romney's plan is that he says he'll repeal ObamaCare on day 1. The immediate effect of that will be to cause hundreds of thousands of people to lose their health insurance. Children on their parent's plan between the age of 18 and 26 will lose insurance. People with Pre-Existing conditions who are already getting coverage through the ACA's Pre-Existing Insurance Pool (check out PCIP.GOV)will lose their coverage. All of them would be then ineligible for coverage under whatever Romney's plan would be. Hey Mitt, isn't the point of all this to provide coverage, not take it away? Another fallacy of the Romney plan is the idea of being able to buy coverage out of state. He says to 'foster competition'. But how would that work? Conventional insurance these days usually consists of a PPO (preferred provider), EPO (exclusive provider), or HMO. All these plans have contracts with lists of doctors and other provider groups to provide service at set rates. If I live in California and want to buy a plan from an insurer in New York, they won't have contracted doctors in my area. The only way to buy out of state insurance would be to go with an unrestricted insurance plan that would allow me to see any doctor anywhere and anytime. This is the most expensive type of coverage plan available.

There's so much more.. it makes my head spin. How is it that anyone could still be "undecided"? It must be that Romney has them confused because he keeps talking out of both sides of his mouth.