POLICY - GUCCIFER 2.0
RESEARCH DEBATE BOOK TOC \o "1-4" \h \z \u POLICY PAGEREF _Toc338179878 \h 13BUSINESS RECORD/PERSONAL FINANCE PAGEREF _Toc338179879 \h 13Bain Capital: Romney And His Partners Made Millions While Driving Several Companies Into Bankruptcy PAGEREF _Toc338179880 \h 13Romney Led Investments In Companies That Were “Pioneers” In Outsourcing PAGEREF _Toc338179881 \h 15Romney Takes Credit For Jobs Created By Bain Capital After He Left PAGEREF _Toc338179882 \h 15Romney Was CEO Of Bain Capital Until Late 2001 PAGEREF _Toc338179883 \h 15Romney Refuses To Be Transparent About His Finances PAGEREF _Toc338179884 \h 16CRIME/GUNS PAGEREF _Toc338179885 \h 19PRO-POTUS PAGEREF _Toc338179886 \h 19Toplines: Fast And Furious PAGEREF _Toc338179887 \h 19Pushback: Gunwalking Began During The Bush Administration PAGEREF _Toc338179888 \h 21Pushback: President Obama Does Not Support A Handgun Ban PAGEREF _Toc338179889 \h 21President Obama Supports The Rights Of Gun Owners Under The Second Amendment PAGEREF _Toc338179890 \h 22The Obama Administration Has Taken Steps To Prevent Gun Violence PAGEREF _Toc338179891 \h 22CONTRAST PAGEREF _Toc338179892 \h 24President Obama Supports The Second Amendment, But Romney Can’t Be Trusted PAGEREF _Toc338179893 \h 24ATTACK PAGEREF _Toc338179894 \h 25Romney Flip-Flopped On The NRA PAGEREF _Toc338179895 \h 25Romney Signed An Assault Weapons Ban And Flip-Flopped On The Federal Ban PAGEREF _Toc338179896 \h 26DEFENSE & FOREIGN POLICY PAGEREF _Toc338179897 \h 27PRO-POTUS PAGEREF _Toc338179898 \h 27President Obama Has Followed Through On Commitments To End The War In Iraq, Bring Justice To Osama Bin Laden, Refocus On Al-Qaeda And Set A Clear Timeline For Withdrawal From Afghanistan PAGEREF _Toc338179899 \h 27President Obama And Military Leadership Have A Drawdown Strategy That Maintains Our Unquestioned Military Dominance PAGEREF _Toc338179900 \h 28Pushback: Attacks In Benghazi PAGEREF _Toc338179901 \h 29President Obama Strongly Supported The Pentagon’s Decision To Stop Buying F-22s, And So Did Sen.? McCain PAGEREF _Toc338179902 \h 30President Obama Has Consistently Spoken Out In Support Of Democratic Movements In the Arab World PAGEREF _Toc338179903 \h 31President Obama Has Made It Clear He Will Not Allow A Nuclear Iran And Has Increased Pressure On the Regime PAGEREF _Toc338179904 \h 32President Obama Worked With Our NATO Allies To Protect Civilians, Halt An Advancing Army, And Stop A Massacre In Libya PAGEREF _Toc338179905 \h 33ATTACK PAGEREF _Toc338179906 \h 33Topline: Romney’s No Foreign Policy Expert PAGEREF _Toc338179907 \h 33Defense Spending: Romney Would Add $2 Trillion In Defense Spending PAGEREF _Toc338179908 \h 35Romney Defense Plan: “Reverse Obama-Era Defense Spending Cuts With The Goal Of Setting A Core Defense Spending Floor Of 4% Of GDP.” [Defense Fact Sheet, Romney For President, 7/24/12] PAGEREF _Toc338179909 \h 36Defense Spending: Sequestration PAGEREF _Toc338179910 \h 37Diplomatic Spending: The Romney-Ryan Budget Could Cut Diplomatic Security PAGEREF _Toc338179911 \h 38Diplomatic Spending: The Romney-Ryan Budget Could Cut Diplomatic Security By Twice As Much As Sequestration PAGEREF _Toc338179912 \h 39Afghanistan: Romney Lacks Plans On Afghanistan PAGEREF _Toc338179913 \h 40Afghanistan: Romney Would Leave Our Troops In Afghanistan PAGEREF _Toc338179914 \h 41Afghanistan: Romney Attacked President Obama On Withdrawing Troops From Afghanistan PAGEREF _Toc338179915 \h 42Bin Laden: Not Worth Moving Heaven And Earth PAGEREF _Toc338179916 \h 42China: Romney Criticized Chinese Tire Tariffs PAGEREF _Toc338179917 \h 43China: Romney Invested In China PAGEREF _Toc338179918 \h 44China: Romney Would Start A Trade War With China PAGEREF _Toc338179919 \h 44Iran: The Sanctions Are Working – We Have A Long Way To Go Before Military Action PAGEREF _Toc338179920 \h 46Iran: Romney Has Offered No New Ideas Beyond Pushing The Red Button PAGEREF _Toc338179921 \h 47Iran: Romney Held Investments In Iran PAGEREF _Toc338179922 \h 48Iran: Romney Would Defer To His Lawyers on Iran PAGEREF _Toc338179923 \h 49Iraq: Romney Called Bringing Our Troops Home From Iraq Tragic PAGEREF _Toc338179924 \h 49Israel: Romney Would “Do The Opposite” Of President Obama PAGEREF _Toc338179925 \h 51Israel: Romney’s Attacks On Israel Are Over The Top PAGEREF _Toc338179926 \h 51Israel: Romney Would “Kick The Ball Down The Field” Rather Than Work Toward A Two-State Solution PAGEREF _Toc338179927 \h 51Libya: Romney Has Been All Over The Map On Libya PAGEREF _Toc338179928 \h 52Libya: Romney Was Panned For Politicizing The Attacks On Our Diplomatic Missions PAGEREF _Toc338179929 \h 53Pakistan: Romney Attacked Those Who Wanted To Go Into Pakistan Unilaterally PAGEREF _Toc338179930 \h 54Russia: Romney Called Russia Our “Number One Geopolitical Foe” PAGEREF _Toc338179931 \h 56Russia: Romney’s Opposition To START Put Him Outside Of The Mainstream PAGEREF _Toc338179932 \h 57Syria: Romney Has No Plan PAGEREF _Toc338179933 \h 57Syria: Romney Would Arm The Opposition Without Regard To Where The Weapons Might End Up PAGEREF _Toc338179934 \h 58Leaks: Romney Defended The Commutation Of Scooter Libby & His Foreign Policy Advisor Was Implicated In The Valerie Plame Leak PAGEREF _Toc338179935 \h 60DEFICITS PAGEREF _Toc338179936 \h 61PRO-POTUS PAGEREF _Toc338179937 \h 61President Obama Has Already Signed $1 Trillion In Deficit Reduction Into Law And Has A Balanced Deficit Reduction Plan PAGEREF _Toc338179938 \h 61President Obama Entered Office Facing A Trillion Dollar Deficit And Massive Debt PAGEREF _Toc338179939 \h 63Republican Obstructionism Impeded Compromise On Deficit Reduction PAGEREF _Toc338179940 \h 64President Obama’s Budget Would Cut The Deficit In Half PAGEREF _Toc338179941 \h 65Contrary To Romney’s Claims, President Obama Has Not Doubled The Deficit PAGEREF _Toc338179942 \h 66Pushback: Added $5 Trillion To The Debt PAGEREF _Toc338179943 \h 66Pushback: Added More Debt Than All Other Presidents Combined PAGEREF _Toc338179944 \h 67Pushback: Sequester PAGEREF _Toc338179945 \h 67President Obama’s Deficit Reduction Plan Is A Balanced Approach Like Simpson-Bowles PAGEREF _Toc338179946 \h 68President Obama Would Protect Medicare And Social Security For Seniors PAGEREF _Toc338179947 \h 69Under President Obama, Federal Spending Has Slowed PAGEREF _Toc338179948 \h 71President Obama Has Taken Action To Cut Government Waste PAGEREF _Toc338179949 \h 72Pushback: President Obama Added 145,000 People To The Federal Workforce PAGEREF _Toc338179950 \h 73CONTRAST PAGEREF _Toc338179951 \h 74President Obama’s Deficit Reduction Plan Would Ask The Wealthy To Pay Their Fair Share, While Romney Would Cut Taxes For The Wealthiest And Add To The Debt PAGEREF _Toc338179952 \h 74Pushback: President Obama Is Responsible For The Sequester PAGEREF _Toc338179953 \h 75Pushback: Republican Obstructionism Led To The Credit Downgrade PAGEREF _Toc338179954 \h 77Romney’s Plan Is Nothing Like Simpson-Bowles PAGEREF _Toc338179955 \h 80ATTACK PAGEREF _Toc338179956 \h 80Romney’s History Of Racking Up Debt PAGEREF _Toc338179957 \h 80Romney Opposed Any Deficit Reduction Proposal With Increased Revenue PAGEREF _Toc338179958 \h 81Romney’s Plans Would Leave A $7 Trillion Hole To Fill PAGEREF _Toc338179959 \h 82Romney’s Plans Would Leave An $8 Trillion Hole To Fill PAGEREF _Toc338179960 \h 83Bush Ties: Romney Supported The Bush Policies That Created The Large Deficit PAGEREF _Toc338179961 \h 84Ryan Voted For Defense Cuts He Now Attacks PAGEREF _Toc338179962 \h 85Ryan Rubber-Stamped The Bush Spending Spree PAGEREF _Toc338179963 \h 86Ryan Felt “Miserable” About His Spending Votes, Which Erased The Clinton-Era Surplus PAGEREF _Toc338179964 \h 89ECONOMY & JOBS PAGEREF _Toc338179965 \h 90PRO-POTUS PAGEREF _Toc338179966 \h 90Toplines – General Job Creation PAGEREF _Toc338179967 \h 90Toplines – Manufacturing PAGEREF _Toc338179968 \h 90The Auto Rescue Saved Over A Million Jobs PAGEREF _Toc338179969 \h 90Under President Obama’s Leadership, The Economy Is Recovering PAGEREF _Toc338179970 \h 91Context: Jobs Losses And Eroding Middle Class Security Before President Obama Took Office PAGEREF _Toc338179971 \h 93Validators: The United States Is Better Off Than When President Obama Took Office PAGEREF _Toc338179972 \h 96Data Points: The United States Is Better Off Than When President Obama Took Office PAGEREF _Toc338179973 \h 96President Obama Has A Plan To Create One Million New Manufacturing Jobs And Invest In Clean Energy, Job Training, And Infrastructure PAGEREF _Toc338179974 \h 98Pushback: Manufacturing Has Lost 582,000 Jobs PAGEREF _Toc338179975 \h 99Pushback: We’re Experiencing The Worst Jobs Recovery On Record PAGEREF _Toc338179976 \h 101Pushback: QE3 Confirms That President Obama’s Policies Have Not Worked PAGEREF _Toc338179977 \h 101Contrary To Romney’s Claims, President Obama Did Not Give GM And Chrysler To The Unions PAGEREF _Toc338179978 \h 102The Auto Rescue Avoided A Financial Catastrophe That Would Have Far Exceeded The Cost Of The Rescue PAGEREF _Toc338179979 \h 103The Managed Bankruptcy Romney Advocated For Is Not What Happened In The Auto Rescue PAGEREF _Toc338179980 \h 103Pushback: President Obama Failed To Keep A Janesville GM Plant Open PAGEREF _Toc338179981 \h 104GM Announced 2,000 New Jobs And Insourcing PAGEREF _Toc338179982 \h 104Romney Gets Facts Wrong In Accusing President Obama Of Being Beholden To Labor Unions PAGEREF _Toc338179983 \h 105President Obama Has Taken Action To Implement 90% Of The Jobs Council’s Recommendations PAGEREF _Toc338179984 \h 107Contrary To Romney’s Claims, The Unemployment Rate Is Declining Because More Americans Are Going Back To Work PAGEREF _Toc338179985 \h 108Republicans’ Main Goal: Obstructionism PAGEREF _Toc338179986 \h 109CONTRAST PAGEREF _Toc338179987 \h 110Toplines PAGEREF _Toc338179988 \h 110President Obama’s Plan Would Create Two Million More Jobs Next Year Than The Romney-Ryan Plan, And Romney’s 12 Million Jobs Claim Has Been Disputed PAGEREF _Toc338179989 \h 111Romney’s Plan Is To Create 12 Million Jobs – But The U.S. Is Already Projected To Do So Over The Next Four Years PAGEREF _Toc338179990 \h 112Under President Obama, Manufacturers Have Added Jobs, While Romney Called President Obama “Out Of Touch” For Encouraging The Manufacturing Sector PAGEREF _Toc338179991 \h 112President Obama Has Fought For Teachers And First Responders’ Jobs, While Romney Would Cut Back PAGEREF _Toc338179992 \h 113ATTACK PAGEREF _Toc338179993 \h 114Topline – Romney’s History Of Poor Job Creation PAGEREF _Toc338179994 \h 114Pushback: 5 Point Plan PAGEREF _Toc338179995 \h 116Pushback: 12 Million Jobs Claim Was Based On Studies That Fail To Prove His Claims PAGEREF _Toc338179996 \h 120Pushback: 12 Million Jobs From Status Quo PAGEREF _Toc338179997 \h 122Romney’s Economic Plans Wouldn’t Create Jobs, And Could Slow The Recovery PAGEREF _Toc338179998 \h 122Pushback: 7 Million Jobs Claim PAGEREF _Toc338179999 \h 123Romney-Ryan Budget Would Slash Investments In The Middle Class PAGEREF _Toc338180000 \h 124Romney Touting The Ryan Budget PAGEREF _Toc338180001 \h 127Romney And Ryan Opposed The American Jobs Act PAGEREF _Toc338180002 \h 127Romney Opposed The Auto Rescue PAGEREF _Toc338180003 \h 127Massachusetts: Romney Increased Spending And Left A Deficit PAGEREF _Toc338180004 \h 129Massachusetts: Romney Left $2.6 Billion In Debt PAGEREF _Toc338180005 \h 130Massachusetts: Household Income Fell While It Rose Nationally PAGEREF _Toc338180006 \h 130Massachusetts: Poor Job Creation PAGEREF _Toc338180007 \h 131Massachusetts: Romney Increased Taxes And Fees, And Pushed A Tax Cut That Benefitted The Wealthy PAGEREF _Toc338180008 \h 132Massachusetts Ranked 48th in Business Start-Up Growth PAGEREF _Toc338180009 \h 134Bush Ties: Romney Plans To Do What Bush Did PAGEREF _Toc338180010 \h 134Romney Supported Ohio’s Question 2 PAGEREF _Toc338180011 \h 135EDUCATION PAGEREF _Toc338180012 \h 136PRO-POTUS PAGEREF _Toc338180013 \h 136President Obama Has Fought To Make Higher Education Affordable For All Americans PAGEREF _Toc338180014 \h 136President Obama Made Education A National Priority With Race To The Top PAGEREF _Toc338180015 \h 137Pushback: President Obama Is Beholden To Teachers’ Unions PAGEREF _Toc338180016 \h 137President Obama Has A Plan To Reduce Tuition Growth PAGEREF _Toc338180017 \h 138CONTRAST PAGEREF _Toc338180018 \h 139President Obama Has Invested In Higher Education While Romney Would Slash Funding For Student Loans PAGEREF _Toc338180019 \h 139Romney Champions For-Profit Colleges, Which Often Break Promises To Students PAGEREF _Toc338180020 \h 140President Obama Has Fought For Teachers As Romney Wants To Cut Back PAGEREF _Toc338180021 \h 141ATTACK PAGEREF _Toc338180022 \h 142Romney Would Cut K-12 Education PAGEREF _Toc338180023 \h 142Romney Wants To Cut Teachers And Opposes Reducing Class Size PAGEREF _Toc338180024 \h 143K-12: Romney’s Plan PAGEREF _Toc338180025 \h 144Romney Praised Race To The Top PAGEREF _Toc338180026 \h 145Higher Education: Romney Would Cut Financial Aid And Told Students To “Shop Around” PAGEREF _Toc338180027 \h 146Romney Would Repeal Student Loan Reform PAGEREF _Toc338180028 \h 147Romney Supports For-Profit Colleges PAGEREF _Toc338180029 \h 148Massachusetts: Romney Slashed K-12 Which Let To Teacher Layoffs PAGEREF _Toc338180030 \h 149Massachusetts: Romney Slashed Higher Education PAGEREF _Toc338180031 \h 150Massachusetts: Pushback On Number 1 Schools PAGEREF _Toc338180032 \h 150ENERGY PAGEREF _Toc338180033 \h 151PRO-POTUS PAGEREF _Toc338180034 \h 151Toplines – Production PAGEREF _Toc338180035 \h 151Under President Obama, Dependence On Foreign Oil Is At Its Lowest Level In 20 Years PAGEREF _Toc338180036 \h 152President Obama’s Fuel Economy Standards Will Save Drivers Money And Reduce Greenhouse Gases PAGEREF _Toc338180037 \h 153Under President Obama, The Oil And Gas Industry Has Added Tens Of Thousands Of Jobs PAGEREF _Toc338180038 \h 154Pushback: President Obama Has Made Historic Investments In Clean Coal Technology While Keeping Miners Safe PAGEREF _Toc338180039 \h 154Pushback: President Obama’s Plans For Clean Energy Are A “Fantasy” PAGEREF _Toc338180040 \h 156Pushback: Under President Obama, Gas Prices Have Risen Significantly PAGEREF _Toc338180041 \h 156Pushback: President Obama Has Made It More Difficult To Drill PAGEREF _Toc338180042 \h 158Pushback: President Obama Blocked The Keystone Pipeline PAGEREF _Toc338180043 \h 159Pushback: The Obama Administration Tried To Institute A National Energy Tax PAGEREF _Toc338180044 \h 160Pushback: Politics Unduly Influenced Taxpayer-Backed Loans To Solyndra PAGEREF _Toc338180045 \h 161CONTRAST PAGEREF _Toc338180046 \h 163President Obama Supports An All Of The Above Energy Plan, While Romney Would Slash Investments In Clean Energy And Cater To Big Oil PAGEREF _Toc338180047 \h 163President Obama Would Cut Subsidies To Oil Companies PAGEREF _Toc338180048 \h 164Production Tax Credit PAGEREF _Toc338180049 \h 165Pushback: President Obama Picked Winners And Losers As Part Of His DOE Loan Program PAGEREF _Toc338180050 \h 166President Obama Has Invested In Clean Coal, But Romney Claimed A Coal Plant “Kills People” PAGEREF _Toc338180051 \h 168ATTACK PAGEREF _Toc338180052 \h 170Romney Claimed A Coal-Fired Plant Killed People PAGEREF _Toc338180053 \h 170Romney Said High Energy Prices Were Here To Stay PAGEREF _Toc338180054 \h 172Romney Opposed Doubled Fuel Economy Standards PAGEREF _Toc338180055 \h 173Romney Raised A Gas Tax By 400% PAGEREF _Toc338180056 \h 173Romney’s Energy Plan Is Written By Big Oil PAGEREF _Toc338180057 \h 174Romney Would Cut Funding For Renewables PAGEREF _Toc338180058 \h 175Romney Would Eliminate The Wind Production Tax Credit PAGEREF _Toc338180059 \h 175ENTITLEMENTS PAGEREF _Toc338180060 \h 177PRO-POTUS PAGEREF _Toc338180061 \h 177The Affordable Care Act Extends Medicare Solvency And Strengthens Benefits PAGEREF _Toc338180062 \h 177President Obama Has Called For A Bipartisan Solution To Strengthen Social Security PAGEREF _Toc338180063 \h 178Pushback: President Obama Cut Medicare To Pay For Obamacare PAGEREF _Toc338180064 \h 179President Obama Did Not Cut $716 Billion From Medicare PAGEREF _Toc338180065 \h 179President Obama Is Committed To Protecting Medicare And Social Security While Reducing The Deficit PAGEREF _Toc338180066 \h 181Pushback: Doctors Will Stop Serving Medicare Patients PAGEREF _Toc338180067 \h 183Pushback: The IPAB Is An Unaccountable Board That Will Ration Care PAGEREF _Toc338180068 \h 184Pushback: The Affordable Care Act Will Take Medicare Advantage Away From Seniors PAGEREF _Toc338180069 \h 185Pushback: President Obama Did Not Raid The Medicare Trust Fund PAGEREF _Toc338180070 \h 186CONTRAST PAGEREF _Toc338180071 \h 187Social Security Contrast PAGEREF _Toc338180072 \h 187Romney’s False Claim That President Obama Cut $716 Billion From Medicare PAGEREF _Toc338180073 \h 188Romney Would Push Medicare Closer To Insolvency PAGEREF _Toc338180074 \h 190ATTACK PAGEREF _Toc338180075 \h 190Romney Would Slash Medicaid PAGEREF _Toc338180076 \h 190Medicare: Romney Would Turn Medicare Into A Voucher Plan PAGEREF _Toc338180077 \h 192Medicare: Romney Would Repeal Medicare Savings PAGEREF _Toc338180078 \h 194Medicare: Romney Would Bankrupt Medicare And Re-Open The Doughnut Hole PAGEREF _Toc338180079 \h 195Medicare: Wyden Did Not Support Ryan On Medicare And Voted Against The Ryan Budget PAGEREF _Toc338180080 \h 196Social Security: Romney Would Cut Benefits PAGEREF _Toc338180081 \h 196Social Security: Romney Would Raise Taxes On Social Security Benefits PAGEREF _Toc338180082 \h 197Social Security: Ryan Was A Leading Advocate For Social Security Privatization PAGEREF _Toc338180083 \h 198HEALTH CARE PAGEREF _Toc338180084 \h 201PRO-POTUS PAGEREF _Toc338180085 \h 201Toplines PAGEREF _Toc338180086 \h 201Consequences Of Repealing Obamacare—Short PAGEREF _Toc338180087 \h 202The Affordable Care Act Improves Efficiency In The Health Care System PAGEREF _Toc338180088 \h 203The Affordable Care Act Began As A Republican Idea PAGEREF _Toc338180089 \h 204AMA, AHA, AND AARP ENDORSED THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT PAGEREF _Toc338180090 \h 204Pushback: President Obama Should Have Focused On The Economy, Not Health Care Reform PAGEREF _Toc338180091 \h 205Pushback: Obamacare Is A Government Takeover Of Health Care PAGEREF _Toc338180092 \h 206Pushback: The Affordable Care Act Does Not Kill Jobs PAGEREF _Toc338180093 \h 207Pushback: The Individual Mandate Is A Tax On The Middle Class PAGEREF _Toc338180094 \h 209Pushback: The Medical Device Tax Would Encourage Companies To Shift Jobs Overseas PAGEREF _Toc338180095 \h 210Consequences Of Repealing The Affordable Care Act -- Long PAGEREF _Toc338180096 \h 211Obamacare Is Helping Lower Health Care Costs-- Short PAGEREF _Toc338180097 \h 212Pushback: The Affordable Care Act Provides Premium Tax Cuts And Lowers Costs PAGEREF _Toc338180098 \h 213Pushback: Obamacare Imposes 18 Tax Hikes On The Middle Class PAGEREF _Toc338180099 \h 214Pushback: Obamacare Imposes The Biggest Tax In The History Of The United States PAGEREF _Toc338180100 \h 215Pushback: 20 Million Americans Will Lose Their Current Insurance PAGEREF _Toc338180101 \h 215Pushback: The Affordable Care Act Adds To The Deficit PAGEREF _Toc338180102 \h 216Pushback: Premium Growth And Health Care Cost Growth Are At Historic Lows PAGEREF _Toc338180103 \h 216CONTRAST PAGEREF _Toc338180104 \h 218Romney’s Health Care Plan Would Raise Costs For Families Compared To Obamacare PAGEREF _Toc338180105 \h 218Despite Romney’s Claims, Millions More Would Lose Health Care Under His Plans Compared To Obamacare PAGEREF _Toc338180106 \h 218Romney Would Repeal Obamacare, Which Ensures Access To Affordable Health Care For All Americans PAGEREF _Toc338180107 \h 219Romney Would Cut The Children’s Health Insurance Program, While President Obama Reauthorized And Expanded It PAGEREF _Toc338180108 \h 220Emergency Rooms PAGEREF _Toc338180109 \h 222ATTACK PAGEREF _Toc338180110 \h 224Romney’s Official Portrait Featured Romneycare PAGEREF _Toc338180111 \h 224Romneycare: Model For The Nation PAGEREF _Toc338180112 \h 224Obamacare Was Crafted With Romneycare Advisors PAGEREF _Toc338180113 \h 226Romneycare Was The Model For Obamacare PAGEREF _Toc338180114 \h 227Romney Would Repeal Obamacare PAGEREF _Toc338180115 \h 228Romney Wanted Tax Penalties For Free Riders PAGEREF _Toc338180116 \h 228Romney Doesn’t Have A Health Care Plan PAGEREF _Toc338180117 \h 230Romney Has No Plan For People With Preexisting Conditions PAGEREF _Toc338180118 \h 230Romney Attacked Emergency Room Care PAGEREF _Toc338180119 \h 232HOUSING PAGEREF _Toc338180120 \h 233PRO-POTUS PAGEREF _Toc338180121 \h 233President Obama Has Helped Millions Of Homeowners Fight Foreclosure And Stay In Their Homes PAGEREF _Toc338180122 \h 233President Obama Is Winding Down Fannie And Freddie PAGEREF _Toc338180123 \h 234Pushback: President Obama Is Helping Responsible Homeowners PAGEREF _Toc338180124 \h 235President Obama Has Fought Against Housing Market Abuses PAGEREF _Toc338180125 \h 237Pushback: President Obama’s Policies Didn’t Work PAGEREF _Toc338180126 \h 238CONTRAST PAGEREF _Toc338180127 \h 239Unlike Romney, President Obama Has Helped Families Facing Foreclosure PAGEREF _Toc338180128 \h 239ATTACK PAGEREF _Toc338180129 \h 241Romney’s Housing Plan: Let Foreclosures Hit The Bottom PAGEREF _Toc338180130 \h 241Romney Opposed The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau PAGEREF _Toc338180131 \h 242IMMIGRATION PAGEREF _Toc338180132 \h 242PRO-POTUS PAGEREF _Toc338180133 \h 242Toplines – Comprehensive Immigration Reform PAGEREF _Toc338180134 \h 242Toplines – DREAM Act PAGEREF _Toc338180135 \h 243Toplines – Deferred Action PAGEREF _Toc338180136 \h 244Toplines – Enforcement PAGEREF _Toc338180137 \h 245The Obama Administration Has Devoted Unprecedented Resources To Border Security PAGEREF _Toc338180138 \h 246Deferred Action Is Well Within The Obama Administration’s Authority PAGEREF _Toc338180139 \h 247President Obama Has Worked To Pass Comprehensive Immigration Reform PAGEREF _Toc338180140 \h 248Pushback: Comprehensive Immigration Reform Used To Be A Bipartisan Issue PAGEREF _Toc338180141 \h 250CONTRAST PAGEREF _Toc338180142 \h 250President Obama Supports The DREAM ACT, Which Romney Has Promised To Veto PAGEREF _Toc338180143 \h 250Deferred Action PAGEREF _Toc338180144 \h 252Romney Claims He Would Secure The Border Before Considering Comprehensive Immigration Reform, But Under President Obama, The Southwest Border Is Safer And More Secure Than It Has Been In Years PAGEREF _Toc338180145 \h 252President Obama Supports Comprehensive Immigration Reform, Romney’s Only Plan Is To Have Undocumented Immigrants Self-Deport PAGEREF _Toc338180146 \h 254ATTACK PAGEREF _Toc338180147 \h 256Romney Is The Most Extreme Nominee On Immigration PAGEREF _Toc338180148 \h 256Romney Called The Arizona Law A Model For The Nation PAGEREF _Toc338180149 \h 257Romney Wants Undocumented Immigrants To Self-Deport PAGEREF _Toc338180150 \h 258Romney Would Veto The DREAM Act PAGEREF _Toc338180151 \h 260NASA PAGEREF _Toc338180152 \h 261PRO-POTUS PAGEREF _Toc338180153 \h 261President Obama Has Put NASA On A New Course For The Future Of Space Exploration PAGEREF _Toc338180154 \h 261ATTACK PAGEREF _Toc338180155 \h 261Romney Has No Plans For Space Exploration, And Would Slash Its Funding PAGEREF _Toc338180156 \h 261OUTSOURCING/OFFSHORING PAGEREF _Toc338180157 \h 263PRO-POTUS PAGEREF _Toc338180158 \h 263President Obama Has Consistently Supported Insourcing As The Policy Of His Administration PAGEREF _Toc338180159 \h 263President Obama Has Fought To Create American Jobs PAGEREF _Toc338180160 \h 264President Obama Has A Plan To Send American Goods Around The World, Not American Jobs PAGEREF _Toc338180161 \h 265CONTRAST PAGEREF _Toc338180162 \h 266President Obama Supports Insourcing, But Romney Has A Record Of Outsourcing PAGEREF _Toc338180163 \h 266ATTACK PAGEREF _Toc338180164 \h 267Romney’s Corporate Tax Plan Would Encourage Companies To Shop Jobs Overseas PAGEREF _Toc338180165 \h 268Romney Outsourced Massachusetts State Jobs PAGEREF _Toc338180166 \h 268Romney Led Investments In Companies That Were “Pioneers” In Outsourcing PAGEREF _Toc338180167 \h 269RACE AND POVERTY PAGEREF _Toc338180168 \h 270PRO-POTUS PAGEREF _Toc338180169 \h 270President Obama Took Action To Support Americans During The Worst Of The Economic Crisis PAGEREF _Toc338180170 \h 270President Obama Believes That Education Is The Best Anti-Poverty Effort PAGEREF _Toc338180171 \h 271President Obama Has Expanded Tax Cuts For Working Families PAGEREF _Toc338180172 \h 273Pushback: A Record Number Of Americans Are On Food Stamps Under President Obama PAGEREF _Toc338180173 \h 273CONTRAST PAGEREF _Toc338180174 \h 275Catholic Leaders Expressed Support For President Obama’s Policies To Help The Less Fortunate PAGEREF _Toc338180175 \h 275ATTACK PAGEREF _Toc338180176 \h 277Romney Would Raise Taxes On Working Families And Take Away Crucial Safety Nets PAGEREF _Toc338180177 \h 277SMALL BUSINESS PAGEREF _Toc338180178 \h 278PRO-POTUS PAGEREF _Toc338180179 \h 278President Obama Has Supported Small Businesses PAGEREF _Toc338180180 \h 278During The Recession, Small Businesses Lacked Access To Capital PAGEREF _Toc338180181 \h 279Small Businesses Are Better Off Than When President Obama Took Office PAGEREF _Toc338180182 \h 279Pushback: President Obama Has Been Bad For Businesses PAGEREF _Toc338180183 \h 280Pushback: EPA Regulations Are An Undue Burden On Businesses PAGEREF _Toc338180184 \h 281President Obama Will Invest In Skilled Workers PAGEREF _Toc338180185 \h 283Pushback: President Obama Has Increased The Regulatory Burden On Small Businesses PAGEREF _Toc338180186 \h 284Romney Inaccurately Claims That Businesses Affected By Ending The High-Income Tax Rates Employ Half Of Americans PAGEREF _Toc338180187 \h 285Romney Uses Flawed Study To Argue That The President’s Tax Plan Would Cost 700,000 Jobs PAGEREF _Toc338180188 \h 286Pushback: “You Didn’t Build That” PAGEREF _Toc338180189 \h 287CONTRAST PAGEREF _Toc338180190 \h 289President Obama Has Cut Taxes For Small Businesses, But Romney Could Raise Taxes On Small Business Owners PAGEREF _Toc338180191 \h 289ATTACK PAGEREF _Toc338180192 \h 290Romney Would Take Away Tax Cuts For Small Businesses PAGEREF _Toc338180193 \h 290The Romney-Ryan Budget Could Slash Investments In Small Business PAGEREF _Toc338180194 \h 290Romney Could Raise Taxes On Small Business Owners PAGEREF _Toc338180195 \h 291Under Romney, Small Business Suffered In Massachusetts PAGEREF _Toc338180196 \h 291STIMULUS PAGEREF _Toc338180197 \h 292PRO-POTUS PAGEREF _Toc338180198 \h 292The Recovery Act Helped Stop Job Losses And Return The Economy To Growth PAGEREF _Toc338180199 \h 292Pushback: President Obama Promised Employment Would Be Below 8 Percent PAGEREF _Toc338180200 \h 293President Obama’s Investments In Clean Energy Have Helped Create Jobs PAGEREF _Toc338180201 \h 294Pushback: The Recovery Act Helped Companies Outsource Jobs PAGEREF _Toc338180202 \h 295Pushback: The Obama Administration Awarded Funding To Make Fisker Cars Overseas PAGEREF _Toc338180203 \h 296Pushback: Recovery Act Funds Went To Build Windmills In China PAGEREF _Toc338180204 \h 296Pushback: The Recovery Act Did Not Distribute Funds In A Transparent Process PAGEREF _Toc338180205 \h 297ATTACK PAGEREF _Toc338180206 \h 298Romney Called For A Stimulus, And Ryan Asked For Stimulus Money PAGEREF _Toc338180207 \h 298Romney Supported Stimulus Packages In Massachusetts PAGEREF _Toc338180208 \h 299TAXES PAGEREF _Toc338180209 \h 299PRO-POTUS PAGEREF _Toc338180210 \h 299President Obama Cut Taxes For The Middle Class And Small Businesses PAGEREF _Toc338180211 \h 299President Obama’s Tax Plan Would Lower Rates And Reward Creating Jobs Here In The United States PAGEREF _Toc338180212 \h 300President Obama Has Not Burdened Businesses With Taxes PAGEREF _Toc338180213 \h 301President Obama Cut Taxes For Small Businesses 18 Times PAGEREF _Toc338180214 \h 302President Obama Cut Taxes 21 Times For The Middle Class PAGEREF _Toc338180215 \h 305President Obama Supports The Buffett Rule PAGEREF _Toc338180216 \h 309President Obama Has Consistently Supported Ending The Bush Tax Cuts On Earnings Over $250,000 PAGEREF _Toc338180217 \h 309President Obama’s Tax Plan Would Ask The Wealthy To Pay Their Fair Share PAGEREF _Toc338180218 \h 310Under Clinton Tax Rates, The US Experienced Record Surpluses And Job Growth PAGEREF _Toc338180219 \h 311President Obama Has Proposed Eliminating Specific Loopholes PAGEREF _Toc338180220 \h 312Pushback: President Obama Would Raise Taxes On Small Businesses By 40% PAGEREF _Toc338180221 \h 312Pushback: President Obama Is Raising Taxes On The Middle Class PAGEREF _Toc338180222 \h 314CONTRAST PAGEREF _Toc338180223 \h 315President Obama Has Cut Middle Class Taxes, While Romney Would Raise Them PAGEREF _Toc338180224 \h 315ATTACK PAGEREF _Toc338180225 \h 3166 Studies On Romney’s Plan Being “Revenue Neutral” PAGEREF _Toc338180226 \h 316Romney Would Cut Taxes For The Wealthy, Paid For By Raising Taxes On The Middle Class PAGEREF _Toc338180227 \h 317Romney’s $17,000 Deduction Cap Would Raise Taxes On The Middle Class And Wouldn’t Cover The Cost Of His Tax Cuts PAGEREF _Toc338180228 \h 320Romney Refuses To Name Deductions He Would Eliminate, To Pay For His Tax Plan PAGEREF _Toc338180229 \h 321Ryan Dodged Specifics On Their Tax Plan PAGEREF _Toc338180230 \h 32247 Percent PAGEREF _Toc338180231 \h 323Ryan: Makers vs. Takers PAGEREF _Toc338180232 \h 326Romney Ridiculed The Clinton Doctrine On The Deficit PAGEREF _Toc338180233 \h 327Romney Flip-Flopped On Signing A No-Tax Pledge PAGEREF _Toc338180234 \h 328Ryan Refuses To Compromise On The Bush Tax Cuts, Holding Middle-Class Tax Cuts Hostage In The Process PAGEREF _Toc338180235 \h 328Ryan’s Previous Budget Plan Would Have Cut Romney’s Tax Rate To Below 1% PAGEREF _Toc338180236 \h 329Cost Of The Bush Tax Cuts For The Rich PAGEREF _Toc338180237 \h 329Romney Has Said He Would Cut Taxes For The Wealthiest PAGEREF _Toc338180238 \h 330TRADE PAGEREF _Toc338180239 \h 331PRO-POTUS PAGEREF _Toc338180240 \h 331President Obama Has Stood Up To Unfair Chinese Trade Practices And Expanded Trade Ties PAGEREF _Toc338180241 \h 331Pushback: President Obama Has Failed To Stand Up To China PAGEREF _Toc338180242 \h 332Pushback: President Obama Failed To Label China A Currency Manipulator PAGEREF _Toc338180243 \h 334Pushback: Under President Obama, China Surpassed The U.S. In Manufacturing PAGEREF _Toc338180244 \h 335Pushback: President Obama’s Action On Tire Tariffs Hurt The U.S. Economy PAGEREF _Toc338180245 \h 336Pushback: President Obama Has Signed No Free Trade Agreements PAGEREF _Toc338180246 \h 337President Obama Has Taken Major Steps To Boost Latin American Trade PAGEREF _Toc338180247 \h 337The U.S. Is On Track To Double Exports By 2015 PAGEREF _Toc338180248 \h 338Pushback: President Obama Stalled Trade Deals PAGEREF _Toc338180249 \h 339The Obama Administration Is Bringing And Winning Trade Enforcement Cases PAGEREF _Toc338180250 \h 340CONTRAST PAGEREF _Toc338180251 \h 341Romney Criticized President Obama’s Efforts To Protect The Tire Industry PAGEREF _Toc338180252 \h 341ATTACK PAGEREF _Toc338180253 \h 341China: Romney Criticized Chinese Tire Tariffs PAGEREF _Toc338180254 \h 341China: Romney Would Start A Trade War With China PAGEREF _Toc338180255 \h 342WALL STREET REFORM PAGEREF _Toc338180256 \h 343PRO-POTUS PAGEREF _Toc338180257 \h 343President Obama Passed The Most Sweeping Set Of Wall Street Reforms Since The 1930s PAGEREF _Toc338180258 \h 343President Obama Made Sure Banks Paid Back Every Dollar They Owed And Instituted Requirements To Strengthen Banks PAGEREF _Toc338180259 \h 344Wall Street Reform Created The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau PAGEREF _Toc338180260 \h 345The Financial Crisis Devastated American Families PAGEREF _Toc338180261 \h 346Pushback: Wall Street Reform Is Crippling Small Banks PAGEREF _Toc338180262 \h 347Pushback: President Obama Didn’t End “Too Big To Fail” PAGEREF _Toc338180263 \h 347Pushback: Wall Street Reform Is Slowing The Economy PAGEREF _Toc338180264 \h 348ATTACK PAGEREF _Toc338180265 \h 349Romney Would Repeal Wall Street Reform PAGEREF _Toc338180266 \h 349Romney Would Repeal The Volcker Rule PAGEREF _Toc338180267 \h 350Romney Said Banks Are Stronger Now PAGEREF _Toc338180268 \h 350WELFARE WORK REQUIREMENTS PAGEREF _Toc338180269 \h 351CONTRAST PAGEREF _Toc338180270 \h 351President Obama’s Action Would Not Gut Welfare Work Requirements -- Short PAGEREF _Toc338180271 \h 351Fact-Checkers Have Debunked Romney And Ryan’s False Attacks On Welfare Waivers -- Long PAGEREF _Toc338180272 \h 352Pushback: President Obama Opposed Work Requirements As A Senator PAGEREF _Toc338180273 \h 353President Obama’s Welfare Waivers Increase States’ Flexibility PAGEREF _Toc338180274 \h 354ATTACK PAGEREF _Toc338180275 \h 355Romney Called For Welfare Waivers PAGEREF _Toc338180276 \h 355THEMATICS PAGEREF _Toc338180277 \h 357ADMINISTRATION “SCANDALS”/ SECRECY PAGEREF _Toc338180278 \h 357PRO-POTUS PAGEREF _Toc338180279 \h 357Toplines – President Obama’s Record of Transparency PAGEREF _Toc338180280 \h 357The Obama Administration Ended Fast And Furious And Complied With Congressional Investigations PAGEREF _Toc338180281 \h 359Authors Of Stories Containing Classified Information Refute Claims That The Obama Administration Leaked Information PAGEREF _Toc338180282 \h 360Republicans Continue Investigating Solyndra To Score Political Points PAGEREF _Toc338180283 \h 361CONTRAST PAGEREF _Toc338180284 \h 363President Obama Has A Record Of Transparency, But Romney Would Not Release His Bundlers PAGEREF _Toc338180285 \h 363ATTACK PAGEREF _Toc338180286 \h 364Romney’s Lack of Transparency PAGEREF _Toc338180287 \h 364Ryan Gave Romney 10 Years Of Returns But Gave The American People Only 2 PAGEREF _Toc338180288 \h 366Romney Won’t Give Policy Details To The American People, But Shares Them With His Donors PAGEREF _Toc338180289 \h 367BROKEN PROMISES PAGEREF _Toc338180290 \h 368PRO-POTUS PAGEREF _Toc338180291 \h 368Topline Promises Kept PAGEREF _Toc338180292 \h 368President Obama Delivered On His Promise To Pass Health Care Reform PAGEREF _Toc338180293 \h 369President Obama Delivered On His Promise To Invest In The Auto Industry PAGEREF _Toc338180294 \h 370President Obama Delivered On His Promise To Bring Justice To Osama Bin Laden PAGEREF _Toc338180295 \h 371President Obama Took Emergency Action To Prevent A Great Depression And His Budget Cuts The Deficit In Half By 2014 PAGEREF _Toc338180296 \h 371Dependence On Foreign Oil PAGEREF _Toc338180297 \h 373President Obama Delivered On His Promise To Responsibly End The War In Iraq PAGEREF _Toc338180298 \h 373President Obama Delivered On His Promise To Cut Taxes For Middle Class Families And Small Businesses PAGEREF _Toc338180299 \h 373President Obama Delivered On His Promise To End Too Big To Fail PAGEREF _Toc338180300 \h 374ATTACK PAGEREF _Toc338180301 \h 375Romney Ran For Governor To Create Jobs And Failed Miserably PAGEREF _Toc338180302 \h 375Romney Broke His Promise To Reduce The Debt In Massachusetts PAGEREF _Toc338180303 \h 375Romney Broke His Promise To Reduce The Size Of Government In Massachusetts PAGEREF _Toc338180304 \h 376CHANGE THE TONE IN WASHINGTON PAGEREF _Toc338180305 \h 377PRO-POTUS PAGEREF _Toc338180306 \h 377Republicans In Congress Made Preventing The President’s Election Their Top Priority PAGEREF _Toc338180307 \h 377President Obama Overcame Republican Obstructionism To Pass Needed Legislation PAGEREF _Toc338180308 \h 378President Obama Stood Up To His Party To Do The Right Thing For The Middle Class PAGEREF _Toc338180309 \h 380ATTACK PAGEREF _Toc338180310 \h 381If Romney’s Partisan Record In Massachusetts Is Any Guide, He Won’t Change The Tone In Washington PAGEREF _Toc338180311 \h 381FIGHTING FOR THE MIDDLE CLASS PAGEREF _Toc338180312 \h 384PRO-POTUS PAGEREF _Toc338180313 \h 384President Obama Is Fighting To Restore Economic Security For The Middle Class PAGEREF _Toc338180314 \h 384President Obama Is Fighting To Help Middle Class Families Earn More And Keep More Of What They Earn PAGEREF _Toc338180315 \h 387ATTACK PAGEREF _Toc338180316 \h 388Romney’s Plan Hurts The Middle Class PAGEREF _Toc338180317 \h 388Under Romney, The Middle Class Paid Higher Taxes And Fees In Massachusetts PAGEREF _Toc338180318 \h 389LEADERSHIP PAGEREF _Toc338180319 \h 390PRO-POTUS PAGEREF _Toc338180320 \h 390President Obama Has Been Praised For His Leadership Across Issues PAGEREF _Toc338180321 \h 390President Obama’s Litany Of Accomplishments PAGEREF _Toc338180322 \h 392The Apology Tour Attack: False Then, False Now PAGEREF _Toc338180323 \h 394President Obama Has Always Believed That Change Happens Because Of The American People PAGEREF _Toc338180324 \h 395ATTACK PAGEREF _Toc338180325 \h 396Romney: Partisan Republican For Washington PAGEREF _Toc338180326 \h 396Ryan: Relished In Partisan Fights PAGEREF _Toc338180327 \h 398Romney: Refuses To Take A Stand PAGEREF _Toc338180328 \h 399PLANS FOR A SECOND TERM PAGEREF _Toc338180329 \h 404PRO-POTUS PAGEREF _Toc338180330 \h 404President Obama Has A Plan To Put More People Back To Work And Create Long Term Economic Growth PAGEREF _Toc338180331 \h 404Training Two Million Workers For Good-Paying Jobs Through Community College-Business Partnerships PAGEREF _Toc338180332 \h 406Cutting Oil Imports In Half By 2020 PAGEREF _Toc338180333 \h 407Creating One Million New Manufacturing Jobs PAGEREF _Toc338180334 \h 409Supporting 600,000 New Jobs In The Natural Gas Industry PAGEREF _Toc338180335 \h 410Recruit And Prepare 100,000 Math And Science Teachers PAGEREF _Toc338180336 \h 411Cut Tuition Growth In Half PAGEREF _Toc338180337 \h 411ATTACK PAGEREF _Toc338180338 \h 412Romney Won’t Reveal Policy Details PAGEREF _Toc338180339 \h 412POLITICAL REFORM PAGEREF _Toc338180340 \h 414PRO-POTUS PAGEREF _Toc338180341 \h 414President Obama Has Taken Action To Restore Transparency And Openness To Our Political System PAGEREF _Toc338180342 \h 414President Obama has Brought Standards Of Ethics And Transparency To His Own Campaign PAGEREF _Toc338180343 \h 415President Obama Called For Serious Consideration Of A Constitutional Amendment To Overturn Citizens United PAGEREF _Toc338180344 \h 416The Obama Administration Put In Place The Toughest Ethics Rules In History PAGEREF _Toc338180345 \h 416CONTRAST PAGEREF _Toc338180346 \h 418President Obama Called On Congress To Pass The DISCLOSE Act, Which Ryan Voted Against PAGEREF _Toc338180347 \h 418The Obama Administration Put In Place The Toughest Ethics Rules In History PAGEREF _Toc338180348 \h 419ATTACK PAGEREF _Toc338180349 \h 421Romney Thinks Corporations Are People And Opposes Campaign Finance Reform PAGEREF _Toc338180350 \h 421Romney Is Supported By The Same Industries His Policies Would Benefit PAGEREF _Toc338180351 \h 422ROLE OF GOVERNMENT PAGEREF _Toc338180352 \h 424PRO-POTUS PAGEREF _Toc338180353 \h 424Factcheckers: The Claim That The Obama Administration Has Ordered Schools To Hire People Is False PAGEREF _Toc338180354 \h 424Romney’s Culture Of Dependency Attack Is False: President Obama Has A Plan To Get Americans Back To Work And Support Small Businesses PAGEREF _Toc338180355 \h 425President Obama Believes In The Strength And Resilience Of The American People—And Knows Government Can’t Solve Every Problem PAGEREF _Toc338180356 \h 426Romney’s Redistribution Attack Takes President Obama Out Of Context PAGEREF _Toc338180357 \h 427Bailout Mitt: Bain, Olympics, Massachusetts PAGEREF _Toc338180358 \h 428TONE OF THE CAMPAIGN PAGEREF _Toc338180359 \h 431PRO-POTUS PAGEREF _Toc338180360 \h 431Crocodile Tears: The Romney Campaign Has Kept “Little Off Limits,” Attacking President Obama’s Patriotism And Pandering To Birthers PAGEREF _Toc338180361 \h 431Personal Attacks PAGEREF _Toc338180362 \h 431Surrogates Attack PAGEREF _Toc338180363 \h 433ATTACK PAGEREF _Toc338180364 \h 435Romney Is Running A Negative Campaign PAGEREF _Toc338180365 \h 435Ryan’s Convention Speech Was Full Of Lies And Negative Rhetoric PAGEREF _Toc338180366 \h 438CONSTITUENCY GROUPS PAGEREF _Toc338180367 \h 440AFRICAN-AMERICAN PAGEREF _Toc338180368 \h 440PRO-POTUS PAGEREF _Toc338180369 \h 440President Obama Is Fighting To Restore Economic Security And Opportunity For African Americans PAGEREF _Toc338180370 \h 440CONTRAST PAGEREF _Toc338180371 \h 442Romney Would Much Of President Obama’s Accomplishments For The African-American Community PAGEREF _Toc338180372 \h 442LATINOS PAGEREF _Toc338180373 \h 443PRO-POTUS PAGEREF _Toc338180374 \h 443President Obama Is Fighting To Restore Economic Security And Opportunity For Latinos PAGEREF _Toc338180375 \h 443Unemployment PAGEREF _Toc338180376 \h 446CONTRAST PAGEREF _Toc338180377 \h 447Romney Would Roll Back Many Of President Obama’s Accomplishments For The Latino Community PAGEREF _Toc338180378 \h 447LGBT PAGEREF _Toc338180379 \h 448PRO-POTUS PAGEREF _Toc338180380 \h 448President Obama Has Fought For Equality For LGBT Americans PAGEREF _Toc338180381 \h 448ATTACK PAGEREF _Toc338180382 \h 449Romney And Ryan Opposed The Repeal Of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” PAGEREF _Toc338180383 \h 449Ryan Opposed Gay Adoption PAGEREF _Toc338180384 \h 450Romney Supports A Federal Marriage Amendment, Outlawing Gay Marriage In States Where It’s Legal PAGEREF _Toc338180385 \h 450Romney Opposes Civil Unions PAGEREF _Toc338180386 \h 451Romney Opposes Federal Employment Protections For Gays And Lesbians PAGEREF _Toc338180387 \h 452VETERANS PAGEREF _Toc338180388 \h 452PRO-POTUS PAGEREF _Toc338180389 \h 452President Obama Is Committed To Supporting Our Troops PAGEREF _Toc338180390 \h 452Sequestration And Veterans PAGEREF _Toc338180391 \h 453CONTRAST PAGEREF _Toc338180392 \h 454Pushback: The Sequester Would Cut Veterans Suicide Prevention PAGEREF _Toc338180393 \h 454ATTACK PAGEREF _Toc338180394 \h 456Romney’s Plans Could Hurt America’s Veterans PAGEREF _Toc338180395 \h 456WOMEN PAGEREF _Toc338180396 \h 457PRO-POTUS PAGEREF _Toc338180397 \h 457President Obama Is Fighting For The Health And Economic Security Of Women And Their Families PAGEREF _Toc338180398 \h 457Job Losses PAGEREF _Toc338180399 \h 459Religious Freedom PAGEREF _Toc338180400 \h 460CONTRAST PAGEREF _Toc338180401 \h 462President Obama Has Fought For Women’s Rights, But Romney Would Take Us Back PAGEREF _Toc338180402 \h 462President Obama And Vice President Biden Are Committed To Strengthening The Violence Against Women Act While Ryan Voted Against It PAGEREF _Toc338180403 \h 463ATTACK PAGEREF _Toc338180404 \h 466Topline PAGEREF _Toc338180405 \h 466Ryan Women – Cut Down PAGEREF _Toc338180406 \h 466Romney And Ryan Backed Proposals To Ban Abortion, Even In Cases Of Rape And Incest PAGEREF _Toc338180407 \h 468Romney Opposes Roe V. Wade PAGEREF _Toc338180408 \h 470Romney Won’t Say Whether He Would Have Signed Lilly Ledbetter, And Refuses To Take A Position On The Paycheck Fairness Act PAGEREF _Toc338180409 \h 470Ryan Sponsored A Bill To Re-Define Rape PAGEREF _Toc338180410 \h 471Ryan Voted In Favor Of The Protect Life Act, Which Could Have Permitted Hospitals To Deny Lifesaving Care To Women PAGEREF _Toc338180411 \h 472Ryan Supported Requiring Women Considering An Abortion To Undergo An Ultrasound PAGEREF _Toc338180412 \h 472Ryan Voted To Protect A Father’s Right To Sue The Doctor Who Performed An Abortion On His Daughter, Even In Cases Of Incest PAGEREF _Toc338180413 \h 473Romney And Ryan Would Eliminate Funding For Planned Parenthood And Title X PAGEREF _Toc338180414 \h 474Massachusetts: Romney Cut Women’s Health Care In Massachusetts PAGEREF _Toc338180415 \h 475Massachusetts: Romney Supported Requiring Religious Institutions To Cover Contraception PAGEREF _Toc338180416 \h 477Massachusetts: Romney Cut Services For Domestic Violence PAGEREF _Toc338180417 \h 478YOUTH PAGEREF _Toc338180418 \h 480PRO-POTUS PAGEREF _Toc338180419 \h 480President Obama Has Taken Action To Support Young Americans PAGEREF _Toc338180420 \h 480Unemployment PAGEREF _Toc338180421 \h 482CONTRAST PAGEREF _Toc338180422 \h 483Romney Would Undo Many Of President Obama’s Accomplishments For Young Americans PAGEREF _Toc338180423 \h 483OTHER BACKUP PAGEREF _Toc338180424 \h 485Quotes PAGEREF _Toc338180425 \h 485Massachusetts Fees PAGEREF _Toc338180426 \h 487Massachusetts: Romney Raised Fees, Cradle To Grave PAGEREF _Toc338180427 \h 487Other Fees PAGEREF _Toc338180428 \h 48919 Tax Cuts In Massachusetts PAGEREF _Toc338180429 \h 494102 Times Romney & Ryan Dodged On Deductions & Loopholes PAGEREF _Toc338180430 \h 498POLICYBUSINESS RECORD/PERSONAL FINANCEBain Capital: Romney And His Partners Made Millions While Driving Several Companies Into BankruptcyROMNEY’S FOCUS AT BAIN CAPITAL WAS CREATING WEALTH FOR INVESTORS, NO MATTER THE EFFECT ON THE COMPANIES THEY ACQUIREDUnder Romney, Bain Capital’s Focus Was Making Short Term Profits For Wealthy Investors And Well-Heeled Institutions No Matter The Effect On The Companies They Acquired. “Whether the acquired companies grew in size or shrank through layoffs, whether they remained independent or eventually merged into larger corporations, was secondary to making the investments pay for Bain’s own investors.? Wealthy individuals and well-heeled institutions typically entrusted Bain with millions of dollars in the hopes of doubling or tripling their money over a short period of time.” [Boston Globe, 10/24/02]Bloomberg: “A Review Of Bain’s Activities… Paint A Picture Of An Operation That Wasn’t Focused On Expanding Employment,” But “Was To Generate Gains For Its Investors.” [Bloomberg, 7/20/11]Romney’s Bain Capital Partner Marc Wolpow: “I Never Thought Of What I Do For A Living As Job Creation … The Primary Goal Of Private Equity Is To Create Wealth For Your Investors.” “Bain managers said their mission was clear. ‘I never thought of what I do for a living as job creation,’ said Marc B. Walpow [sic], a former managing partner at Bain who worked closely with Romney for nine years before forming his own firm. ‘The primary goal of private equity is to create wealth for your investors.’” [Los Angeles Times, 12/3/11]ROMNEY AND HIS PARTNERS MADE MILLIONS EVEN WHILE DRIVING SEVERAL COMPANIES INTO BANKRUPTCY New York Times: “Bain Structured Deals So That It Was Difficult For The Firm And Its Executives To Ever Really Lose, Even If Practically Everyone Else Involved With The Company That Bain Owned Did, Including Its Employees, Creditors And Even, At Times, Investors In Bain’s Funds.” [New York Times, 6/22/12]Under Romney, Bain Capital Propelled Dade Behring Toward Bankruptcy While Cutting 1,700 Jobs And Making $242 Million. ?“At Bain Capital’s direction, Dade [Behring] quadrupled the money it owed creditors and vendors. It took steps that propelled the business toward bankruptcy. And in waves of layoffs, it cut loose 1,700 workers in the United States, including Brian and Christine Shoemaker, who lost their jobs at a plant in Westwood, Mass.… By the time the Harvard M.B.A.’s from Bain were finished, sales at the medical company, Dade International, had more than doubled. The business acquired two of its rivals. And Mr. Romney’s firm collected $242 million, a return eight times its investment.” [New York Times, 11/13/11]Romney And His Partners Made $12 Million From GS Industries While 750 Workers Lost Their Jobs And Pension Benefits Were Cut By Up To $400 A Month After A Federal Agency Had To “Pony Up $44 Million To Bail Out The Company’s Underfunded Pension Plan.” “Less than a decade later, the mill was padlocked and some 750 people lost their jobs. Workers were denied the severance pay and health insurance they’d been promised, and their pension benefits were cut by as much as $400 a month.? What’s more, a federal government insurance agency had to pony up $44 million to bail out the company’s underfunded pension plan. Nevertheless, Bain profited on the deal, receiving $12 million on its $8 million initial investment and at least $4.5 million in consulting fees.” [Reuters, 1/6/12]Romney’s Firm Reaped $100 Million While They Laid Off Workers And Racked Up Debt, Plunging Ampad Into Bankruptcy.?”In 1992, Bain Capital acquired American Pad & Paper, or?Ampad,?from Mead Corp., embarking on a ‘roll-up strategy’ in which a firm buys up similar companies in the same industry in order to expand revenues and cut costs. Through Ampad, Bain bought several other office supply makers, borrowing heavily each time. By 1999, Ampad’s debt reached nearly $400 million, up from $11 million in 1993, according to government filings. Sales grew, too - for a while. But by the late 1990s, foreign competition and increased buying power by superstores like Bain-funded Staples sliced Ampad’s revenues. The result: Ampad couldn’t pay its debts and plunged into bankruptcy. Workers lost jobs and stockholders were left with worthless shares. Bain Capital, however, made money - and lots of it. … But while as many as 185 workers near Buffalo lost jobs in a 1999 plant closing, Bain Capital and its investors ultimately made more than $100 million on the deal.”?[Boston Globe, 6/26/07]UNDER ROMNEY, BAIN CAPITAL PROFITED WHETHER COMPANIES SUCCEEDED OR FAILEDNew York Times: “Bain Structured Deals So That It Was Difficult For The Firm And Its Executives To Ever Really Lose, Even If Practically Everyone Else Involved With The Company That Bain Owned Did, Including Its Employees, Creditors And Even, At Times, Investors In Bain’s Funds.” [New York Times, 6/22/12]Under Romney’s Leadership, Bain Capital Helped Lead A Trend Of Acquiring Companies Using Debt Pledged Against The Companies’ Assets And Made Money Whether Companies Succeeded Or Failed. “But a closer examination of the prospectus paints a different picture of Bain’s operation. Under Romney’s leadership, Bain became one of the nation’s top leveraged-buyout firms, helping lead a trend in which companies were acquired using debt often pledged against their own assets or earnings. Bain expanded many of the companies it acquired. But like other leveraged-buyout firms, Romney and his team also maximized returns by firing workers, seeking government subsidies, and flipping companies quickly for large profits. Sometimes Bain investors gained even when companies slid into bankruptcy.” [Los Angeles Times, 12/3/11]UNDER ROMNEY, BAIN CAPITAL CLOSED BUSINESSES, CUT BENEFITS, LAID OFF THOUSANDSBloomberg: Under Romney “Some Firms Had Indications Their Jobs Might Be In Jeopardy Soon After Bain Moved Into Management. In Other Cases, Pink Slips Arrived After Bain And Its Investors Had Collected Their Profits And Left Debts Behind.” “A Bloomberg review of several Bain deals during Romney’s tenure showed that workers in some firms had indications their jobs might be in jeopardy soon after Bain moved into management. In other cases, pink slips arrived after Bain and its investors had collected their profits and left debts behind.” [Bloomberg, 7/20/11]“Under Bain’s Direction” Dade Behring’s Debt Soared, Costs Were Squeezed “Through Plant Consolidations, Layoffs, And Reduced Employee Benefits.” “In 1997, Bain acquired two other companies and formed Dade Behring, based in Deerfield, Ill. The company flourished, raking in millions in sales. Yet debt was soaring. Under Bain’s direction the company squeezed costs through plant consolidations, layoffs and reduced employee benefits.” [Miami Herald, 1/18/12]Romney And His Partners Made $12 Million From GS Industries While 750 Workers Lost Their Jobs And Benefits As The Company’s Kansas City Steel Mill Was Shuttered. “Less than a decade later, the mill was padlocked and some 750 people lost their jobs. Workers were denied the severance pay and health insurance they’d been promised, and their pension benefits were cut by as much as $400 a month.? What’s more, a federal government insurance agency had to pony up $44 million to bail out the company’s underfunded pension plan. Nevertheless, Bain profited on the deal, receiving $12 million on its $8 million initial investment and at least $4.5 million in consulting fees.” [Reuters, 1/6/12]Under Bain Capital, Ampad Cut Hourly Wages, Eliminated The Retirement Plan, And Tripled The Health Insurance Co-Pays. “The Marion strike began after Ampad bought the plant in July and within hours released some 250 plant workers. It later hired back all but 58. Among those laid off were two pregnant women, union officials said. Ampad then cut the hourly wages from $10.22 per hour to $7.88, did away with the retirement plan, and tripled the co-payments for the health plan.” [The Boston Globe, 9/23/1994]Los Angeles Times Found That Four Bain Companies That Went Bankrupt Shed “Thousands Of Jobs.” “Four of the 10 companies Bain acquired declared bankruptcy within a few years, shedding thousands of jobs.” [Los Angeles Times, 12/3/11]Romney Led Investments In Companies That Were “Pioneers” In OutsourcingROMNEY LED INVESTMENTS IN FIRMS THAT GREW INTO SOME OF THE LARGEST OUTSOURCING AND OFFSHORING COMPANIES IN THE WORLDWashington Post: “Mitt Romney’s Financial Company, Bain Capital, Invested In A Series Of Firms That Specialized In Relocating Jobs Done By American Workers To New Facilities In Low-Wage Countries Like China And India.” [Washington Post, 6/22/12]Washington Post: “During The 15 Years That Romney Was Actively Involved In Running Bain…It Owned Companies That Were Pioneers In The Practice Of Shipping Work From The United States To Overseas Call Centers And Factories.” “During the nearly 15 years that Romney was actively involved in running Bain, a private equity firm that he founded, it owned companies that were pioneers in the practice of shipping work from the United States to overseas call centers and factories making computer components, according to filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission.” [Washington Post, 6/22/12]Washington Post Ombudsman: “Bain Knowingly And Far-Sightedly Made Strategic Investments, With Romney At The Helm, In These Pioneering Outsourcing Firms In The Late 1990s, Which Grew Into Some Of The Largest Outsourcing And Offshoring Companies In The World. And Romney And Bain Shared In Their Profits While He Was Chief Executive And After He Left.” [Washington Post, 6/29/12]Romney Takes Credit For Jobs Created By Bain Capital After He LeftROMNEY TAKES CREDIT FOR JOBS CREATED AT COMPANIES WELL AFTER HE LEFT BAIN CAPITALBloomberg On Romney’s Job Creation Claims: Bain Capital “Didn’t Discover The Entrepreneurs Who Came Up With The Ideas For The Chains, Wasn’t Their First Investor, And Ended Its Stake In The Companies Well Before They Grew Into The National Retailers They Are Today.” “How much Romney was involved at the companies and what level of credit he should get for current employment figures -- 90,000 at Staples and 15,000 and Sports Authority -- is a matter of debate. Bain didn’t discover the entrepreneurs who came up with the ideas for the chains, wasn’t their first investor, and ended its stake in the companies well before they grew into the national retailers they are today.” [Bloomberg, 2/27/12]Associated Press Fact Check: Romney’s Campaign Credits Romney With Job Creation At Staples, Domino’s And Sports Authority Years After Romney’s Involvement With Them Ceased. ?“Moreover, his campaign bases its claims on recent employment figures at three companies - Staples, Domino's and Sports Authority - even though Romney's involvement with them ceased years ago.” [Fact Check, Associated Press, 1/7/12]Romney Was CEO Of Bain Capital Until Late 2001DESPITE ROMNEY’S CLAIM TO HAVE LEFT BAIN IN FEBRUARY 1999, HE REMAINED THE CEO, PRESIDENT AND CHAIRMAN UNTIL LATE 2001Boston Globe: SEC Documents Show Romney “Remained The Firm’s “Sole Stockholder, Chairman Of The Board, Chief Executive Officer, And President” Despite His Claim To Have Left The Firm In 1999. “Romney has said he left Bain in 1999 to lead the winter Olympics in Salt Lake City, ending his role in the company. But public Securities and Exchange Commission documents filed later by Bain Capital state he remained the firm’s ‘sole stockholder, chairman of the board, chief executive officer, and president.’” [Boston Globe, 7/12/12]Boston Globe: Massachusetts Corporate Records Show That It Was Not Until 2001 That Romney’s Bain Capital “Partners Established A New Corporate Structure To Permanently Run Bain Capital Without Him.” “Massachusetts corporate records reviewed by the Globe on Sunday show that it was not until a span of several months in 2001 — more than two years after Romney said he retired from Bain Capital — that his partners established a new corporate structure to permanently run Bain Capital without him.” [Boston Globe, 7/16/12]Boston Globe: “And Romney’s State Financial Disclosure Forms Indicate He Earned At Least $100,000 As A Bain ‘Executive’ In 2001 And 2002, Separate From Investment Earnings.” [Boston Globe, 7/12/12]Romney’s Name Appears On At Least 142 SEC Forms In Connection With Bain Capital Between February 1999 And August 2001. “Yet because he retained technical control of Bain Capital’s management and because his wealth remained heavily tied up with the firm, Mr. Romney’s name or signature appears on dozens of documents filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission between February 1999 and August 2001, when he finalized a retirement deal with the active Bain partners and transferred to them his shares of Bain’s management entity. … All told, Mr. Romney’s name appears on at least 142 such forms, some of which have been the subject of news coverage in recent days, fueling questions about whether Mr. Romney ever really left.” [New York Times, 7/15/12]Buzzfeed: “In February 2000, Romney Was Introduced As The ‘Founder And CEO’” Of Bain Capital During An Olympics Appearance And His Biography On The Olympics’ Website Also Listed Him As The Founder And CEO Of Bain. “Mitt Romney has spent much of the last week arguing that, despite some public records, he was effectively gone from Bain Capital in February 1999. But in February 2000, Romney was introduced as the ‘founder and CEO of Capital’ at the National Press Club during an appearance about the Olympics, and Romney's biography on the Olympic's website listed him as Bain Capital ‘founder and CEO.’” [Buzzfeed, 7/18/12]New York Times Editorial: “Mr. Romney’s Descriptions Of When He Left Bain Have Been Erratic And Self-Serving.” “Mr. Romney’s descriptions of when he left Bain have been erratic and self-serving. In 2002, when he needed to show he was still a Massachusetts resident, he denied he had quit in 1999, saying he had taken a leave of absence to run the Olympics committee. A series of documents filed with the Securities and Exchange Committee show that Bain certainly didn’t describe him as absent after 1999. A former Bain managing director, Edward Conard, said on MSNBC Sunday that Mr. Romney remained C.E.O. ‘legally’ so he could negotiate his generous exit deal.” [Editorial, New York Times, 7/15/12]Romney Refuses To Be Transparent About His FinancesROMNEY HAS RELEASED ONLY TWO YEARS OF TAX RETURNS FOR VOTERS AND REFUSES TO RELEASE RETURNS PRIOR TO 2010…Romney Has Said He Won’t Release Any Tax Returns Prior To 2010. “Romney has said he won’t go beyond releasing his 2010 tax records and, before the November election, his 2011 taxes.” [Associated Press, 7/14/12]Romney’s Campaign Is “Incredibly Tightfisted With Information On The Candidate’s Finances, Rarely Offering Straightforward Responses To Questions From Reporters.” “By only releasing one year of tax returns, Romney is making it impossible to see how his assets evolved over time. One year is only a pounding the lack of disclosure, Romney’s campaign has been incredibly tightfisted with information on the candidate’s finances, rarely offering straightforward responses to questions from reporters.” [CNN Money, 7/10/12]Romney Has Only Released Two Years Of Tax Returns And Has Left “Key Questions Unanswered” About His Finances In Prior Years. “After months of criticism for saying he would release only two years of tax returns, Mitt Romney on Friday put out a report from his accountants about taxes he has paid over 20 years.But the one-page document left key questions unanswered. … The letter did not give any dollar amounts of income or taxes paid. And it only referred to adjusted gross income, rather than total income, which can be substantially higher. ‘Adjusted gross income is not a full measure of income,’ said Roberton Williams, a senior fellow at the Tax Policy Center.Williams said the wealthy often use tax shelters and investments overseas to reduce their adjusted gross income and the resulting tax bite.” [CNN Money, 9/21/12]…BREAKING PRECEDENT ESTABLISHED BY BOTH DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS, INCLUDING HIS OWN FATHERRomney’s Refusal To Fully Disclose His Financial Records “Runs Counter To Years Of Precedent Established By Democrats And Republicans Alike,” Including His Own Father Who Released 12 Years Of Tax Returns. “But The Episode Only Serves To Reinforce The Perception That Romney Is Shielding His Finances From Public View, A Tactic That Runs Counter To Years Of Precedent Established By Democrats And Republicans Alike. … The Romney campaign has released only one year of the candidate’s tax returns, for the year 2010. It has provided an estimate for 2011, the most recent filing. But those returns are not yet final.Romney’s father, by way of a quick comparison, released 12 years of tax returns when he pursued the presidency.” [CNN Money, 7/10/12]RYAN PROVIDED TEN YEARS OF TAX RETURNS DURING VETTING FOR VICE PRESIDENTIAL NOMINATION …Daily Beast: “As Part Of Its Vetting, The Romney Campaign Required At Least Some Of The Candidates On The Short List—Including The Eventual Winner Of The GOP Veepstakes, Ryan—To Submit Fully 10 Years Of Tax Returns.” “As part of its vetting, the Romney campaign required at least some of the candidates on the short list—including the eventual winner of the GOP veepstakes, Ryan—to submit fully 10 years of tax returns, according to a knowledgeable source. The requirement was consistent with the past practices of both Republican and Democratic campaigns.? Indeed, in 2008, Mitt Romney turned over 23 years of taxes to John Mccain’s campaign when he was under consideration to be the Arizona senator’s running mate.” ?[Daily Beast, 9/13/12] Daily Beast Headline: “Romney Asked VP Shortlisters For Ten Years Of Tax Returns” [Daily Beast, 9/13/12]ROMNEY THINKS IT’S FAIR HE PAYS A LOWER TAX RATE THAN MANY MIDDLE CLASS FAMILIESRomney Agreed It Was “Fair” That Someone Like Him Who Earns $20 Million But Pays A Lower Tax Rate Than Someone Who Made $50,000, Because That’s “The Right Way To Encourage Economic Growth.”?PELLEY: “Now you made, on your investments, personally, about $20 million last year. And you paid 14% in federal taxes. That's the capital gains rate. Is that fair to the guy who makes $50,000 and paid a higher rate than you did?” ROMNEY: “It is a low rate. And one of the reasons why the capital gains tax rate is lower is because capital has already been taxed once at the corporate level, as high as 35%.” PELLEY: “So you think it is fair.” ROMNEY: “Yeah, I-- I think it's the right way to encourage economic growth-- to get people to invest, to start businesses, to put people to work.” [60 Minutes, CBS News, 9/23/12]2011: Romney Paid A 14.1 Percent Tax Rate On $13.7 Million In Income, Lower Than What Many Middle Class Families Pay. “Romney’s updated tax returns, which will be posted online in full at 3 p.m. on Friday, show that he paid $1.9 million in taxes on $13.7 million in income, most of which came from his investments. It means his effective tax rate for 2011 was 14.1 percent, which is slightly higher than it was in 2010 but still far lower than the rate most Americans pay.” [Boston Globe, 9/21/12]2010: Romney Paid A 13.9 Percent Tax Rate On $21.6 Million In Income. “Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney earned $21.6 million in 2010 and paid 13.9 percent of that amount in income taxes, using the preferential rate on investment income and charitable deductions to pay a smaller share of his earnings than top wage earners typically do.” [Bloomberg, 1/24/12]ROMNEY HAD A SWISS BANK ACCOUNT FOR SEVEN YEARS AND HELD $3 MILLIONRomney Amended His Personal Financial Disclosure As He Had Previously Failed To Report A Swiss Bank Account That Held $3 Million Until It Was Closed In 2010. “Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney amended his personal financial disclosure Friday evening to reflect income from a now-closed Swiss bank account and one other investment fund he had originally failed to report on an ethics form…. The letter sent Friday to the Federal Election Commission by a law firm representing the campaign noted that the two funds left off the report together generated less than $5,000 in income. The account in the Swiss bank UBS, which held $3 million until it was closed in 2010, earned about $1,700 in interest.” [Los Angeles Times, 2/3/12]Romney’s Swiss Bank Account Was Opened In 2003. “Malt said he opened up the Swiss bank account, holdings in which are valued valued at between $1 million and $5 million, in 2003 on behalf the Ann Romney trust in order to provide ‘international currency diversification’ for the trust's holdings.” [NBC News, 1/26/12]ROMNEY “PIONEERED BAIN CAPITAL’S OFFSHORE STRATEGIES” AND AVOIDED U.S. TAXES THROUGH HIS CONTINUED INVESTMENTS IN FOREIGN TAX HAVENSMcClatchy News: “Romney Pioneered Bain Capital’s Offshore Strategies, Forming Partnerships And Companies In The Late 1990s In Bermuda, The Grand Caymans And Luxembourg That Helped Spawn A System Now Criticized For Minimizing Tax Revenue.” [McClatchy News, 10/2/12]New York Times: Romney’s Offshore Holdings Allowed His IRA To Avoid Taxes “And May Well Have Reduced Mr. Romney’s Personal Income Tax Bills.” “A review of thousands of pages of financial documents and interviews with tax lawyers found that in some cases, the offshore arrangements enabled his individual retirement account to avoid taxes on its investments and may well have reduced Mr. Romney’s personal income tax bills.But perhaps a more significant impact of Mr. Romney’s offshore investments has been on the profit side of the ledger — in the way Bain’s tax-avoidance strategies have enhanced his income.” [New York Times, 10/1/12]Romney’s Bain Capital Funds Were Able To Avoid Taxes By Being Set Up In The Cayman Islands. “A variety of Bain funds in the Romneys’ portfolio have controlling stakes in foreign companies. Had those funds been set up in the United States, the Romneys and other American investors would probably have been subject to certain federal taxes for their ownership of ‘controlled foreign corporations.’ Setting up the funds in the Caymans allowed them to avoid those taxes.” [New York Times, 10/1/12]Romney’s IRA Used “Offshore Blockers” To Avoid A U.S. Business Tax. “Individual retirement accounts, as tax-exempt entities, are subject to the ‘unrelated business income’ tax. But people familiar with Mr. Romney’s investments said his I.R.A., which is managed by an independent trustee and is estimated to be worth between $21 million and $102 million, used offshore blockers to avoid the tax. Mr. Romney’s I.R.A., for instance, has millions invested in several Sankaty funds with onshore and offshore investment vehicles. His I.R.A. would have invested through the offshore funds, they said.” [New York Times, 10/1/12]ROMNEY HAS MILLIONS INVESTED IN THE CAYMAN ISLANDS, “A NOTORIOUS CARIBBEAN TAX HAVEN”Vanity Fair: Bain Capital “Has At Least 138 Funds Organized In The Cayman Islands, And Romney Himself Has Personal Interests In At Least 12, Worth As Much As $30 Million, Hidden Behind Controversial Confidentiality Disclaimers.” “The firm today has at least 138 funds organized in the Cayman Islands, and Romney himself has personal interests in at least 12, worth as much as $30 million, hidden behind controversial confidentiality disclaimers. Again, the Romney campaign insists he saves no tax by using them, but there is no way to check this.” [Vanity Fair, 7/3/12]ABC News: “Although It Is Not Apparent On His Financial Disclosure Form, Mitt Romney Has Millions Of Dollars Of His Personal Wealth In Investment FundsROMNEY’S BERMUDA CORPORATION COULD BE DEFERRING TAXES DUE TO ITS LEGAL OFFSHORE STATUSThe Bermuda-Based Sankaty High Yield Asset Investors Ltd. Was Among Several Romney Holdings Not Listed On Any Of Romney's State Or Federal Financial Reports. “Based in Bermuda, Sankaty High Yield Asset Investors Ltd. was not listed on any of Romney's state or federal financial reports. The company is among several Romney holdings that have not been fully disclosed, including one that recently posted a $1.9 million earning — suggesting he could be wealthier than the nearly $250 million estimated by his campaign.” [Associated Press, 7/4/12]Associated Press: “Romney's Limited Disclosures Deprive The Public Of An Accurate Depiction Of His Wealth And A Clear Understanding Of How His Assets Are Handled And Taxed.” “But Romney's limited disclosures deprive the public of an accurate depiction of his wealth and a clear understanding of how his assets are handled and taxed, according to experts in private equity, tax and campaign finance law. [Associated Press, 7/4/12]Tax Analysts Said The Legal Offshore Status Of Romney’s Bermuda Corporation Could Be Used To Defer Taxes. “Even though Sankaty is no longer used for Bain investments, several tax analysts said its legal offshore status still could be used by Romney to defer some taxes on some of the ‘carried interest’ income related to the Bain deals.” [Associated Press, 7/4/12]CRIME/GUNSPRO-POTUSToplines: Fast And FuriousTHE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION LAUNCHED AN INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION INTO OPERATION FAST AND FURIOUSAttorney General Holder Ordered An Inspector General Investigation To Determine The Facts About The ATF’s Operation Fast & Furious. “Fast and Furious was a highly secret undercover program begun with great ambition. The border was out of control, and the new Obama administration wanted to stop U.S. guns from crossing into Mexico and arming drug cartels. The Justice Department, which oversees the ATF, was pushing for agents to stop arresting small-time gun smugglers and concentrate instead on the big-name cartels. Today, the program is the subject of two investigations into why it was approved, why no one put a speedy end to it, and who among top ATF and Justice Department officials should be held responsible. No one in hindsight believes it was a good idea. ‘This is not a technique that should ever be used,’ said Atty. Gen. Eric H. Holder Jr., who ordered an inspector general investigation into Fast and Furious.” [Los Angeles Times, 8/11/11]THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION DID NOT AUTHORIZE THE TACTICS USED IN FAST AND FURIOUS AND EXPLICITLY PROHIBITED THEMDepartment Of Justice Inspector General Report: Attorney General Holder Did Not Authorize ATF Investigative Tactics That Allowed Illegally Purchased Weapons To Go To Mexico.? “In Fast and Furious, ATF agents allowed firearms to ‘walk,’ which meant ending surveillance on weapons suspected to be en route to Mexican drug cartels. … The report largely spared Holder from personal blame, saying he did not authorize the tactics used and did not know about allegations that guns had ‘walked’ until after the DOJ broadly denied that tactic was used in a February letter to Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa).” [Roll Call, 9/20/12]Department Of Justice Inspector General Report: Attorney General Holder Changed Justice Department Policy To Require The Interdiction Of Weapons In The U.S. Whenever Legally Possible, And Explicitly Prohibited The Tactics Used In Fast & Furious. “As a result, Attorney General Holder changed Department policy to require Department law enforcement agencies to interdict firearms in the United States where there was lawful authority to do so. In addition, at Holder’s direction, on March 9, 2011, Deputy Attorney General (DAG) Cole issued a directive to Southwest Border U.S. Attorneys stating that tactics allowing firearms to cross the border violated Department policy and would not be tolerated, including ‘controlled deliveries’ that were coordinated with Mexican law enforcement.” [U.S. Department of Justice, Office of the Inspector General, Review of ATF’s Operation Fast & Furious, p.421, 9/19/12]THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION PUT NEW LEADERSHIP IN PLACE AT THE ATF AND HELD DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE OFFICIALS ACCOUNTABLEAttorney General Holder Removed The Acting Director Of The Bureau Of Alcohol, Tobacco And Firearms From His Position As A Result Of Operation Fast And Furious; The U.S. Attorney For Arizona Stepped Down. ??“The Obama administration on Tuesday removed or reassigned the top officials involved in a widely criticized U.S. operation to trace the flow of illegal guns into Mexico. … The acting director of ATF, Kenneth Melson, has been reassigned to a Justice Department policy office. And Dennis Burke, the U.S. attorney in Arizona who approved the ‘Fast and Furious’ operation, resigned Tuesday.? A senior Justice Department official said Attorney General Eric Holder had lost confidence in them and that ATF needed ‘a fresh start.’ Melson has been under fire and has admitted mistakes in the sting operation meant to try to crack down on the flow of weapons to violent drug gangs. ?Burke is an experienced federal prosecutor.” [MSNBC, 8/30/11]The Inspector General’s Report On Operation Fast And Furious Referred More Than A Dozen Justice Department Employees For Possible Disciplinary Action. “In the 471-page report, Inspector General Michael Horowitz referred more than a dozen people for possible department disciplinary action for their roles in Operation Fast and Furious and a separate, earlier probe known as Wide Receiver, undertaken during the George W. Bush administration. A former acting deputy attorney general and the head of the criminal division were criticized for actions and omissions related to operations subsequent to and preceding Fast and Furious.” [Associated Press, 9/19/12]THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION WORKED TO COMPLY WITH A CONGRESSIONAL INVESTIGATION -- DESCRIBED AS A “SHAMEFUL EXERCISE IN POLITICAL GAMESMANSHIP” -- TURNED UP NOTHINGAttorney General Holder Testified Before Congress Nine Times To Discuss Fast And Furious. “The week's events mark a number of firsts in the Obama administration and could mark a first for the United States. By the numbers, here's a look at the facts underlying the Fast and Furious gun-walking operation and the standoff it has caused between Republicans in Congress and the Obama administration... 9 - Times Attorney General Eric Holder has testified before Congress during the 14-month investigation.” [CNN, 6/22/12]The Department Of Justice Released 7,600 Pages Of Documents To Congress In The Fast And Furious Investigation. “The administration has already turned over to Congress some 7,600 documents dealing with ‘Fast and Furious’ – an operation in which federal agents based in Arizona lost track of guns they had allowed criminals to obtain in an attempt to trace them back to gang leaders.” [Christian Science Monitor, 6/21/12]Washington Post Editorial: Rep. Darrell Issa “Has Lurched From One Conspiracy Theory To Another In Search Of A Bigger, Underlying Scandal.”? “The dispute centers on material developed after the Justice Department submitted a letter to Congress, since withdrawn as inaccurate, denying the existence of an operation to let guns ‘walk’ from their points of purchase in the United States to Mexican drug cartels. Two of the 2,500 guns turned up at the scene of a U.S. Border Patrol agent’s murder. This is a legitimate subject for congressional inquiry, even if Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), who chairs the oversight panel, has lurched from one conspiracy theory to another in search of a bigger, underlying scandal.”? [Editorial: Washington Post, 6/30/12]New York Times Editorial: The Vote To Hold Attorney General Holder In Contempt “Was A Shameful Exercise In Political Gamesmanship” And A Distraction From Real Issues.? “There is little chance that Mr. Holder will be prosecuted for criminal contempt, but a second House vote authorized Mr. Issa’s committee to pursue a civil court action against him — energy and effort much better spent developing a workable plan to stem the flood of American guns to Mexican drug cartels that gave rise to the disputed Fast and Furious Operation. This was a shameful exercise in political gamesmanship. House Republicans and the gun lobby, in making Mr. Holder the first sitting cabinet member in history to be held in contempt, came out looking a lot worse than their target.” [Editorial: New York Times, 6/30/12]U.S. House Oversight Committee Chairman Issa Said That He Has Seen No Evidence That The White House Was Involved In Any Sort Of Effort To Conceal Information From Congress In Operation Fast And Furious. ?“On ‘Fox News Sunday,’ a clip of Mr. Boehner’s statement was played and Mr. Issa was asked in an interview whether his committee had evidence that White House officials had knowingly misled Congress about the case. ‘No, we don’t,’ Mr. Issa said.” [New York Times, 6/25/12]Pushback: Gunwalking Began During The Bush AdministrationTHE GUNWALKING TECHNIQUE IN OPERATION FAST AND FURIOUS BEGAN DURING THE BUSH ADMINISTRATIONTHE GUNWALKING TACTICS USED IN OPERATION FAST AND FURIOUS BEGAN DURING THE BUSH ADMINISTRATIONThe ATF’s Investigative Use Of Gunwalking, Or Failing To Seize Firearms Despite A Sufficient Legal Basis To Do So, Began During Operation Wide Receiver, During The George W. Bush Administration. “[T]he OIG received information about several other ATF investigations that possibly used a strategy and tactics similar to those allegedly employed in Operation Fast and Furious, including the tactic of failing to seize firearms despite having a sufficient legal basis to do so. … This knowledge of ‘gun walking’ in Operation Wide Receiver by senior officials in the Department’s Criminal Division and by ATF was significant to us as we evaluated the ATF’s and the Department’s response to Congressional inquiries about ATF firearms trafficking investigations along the Southwest Border in the wake of the shooting death of Agent Terry. … Operation Wide Receiver was conducted in two parts between March 2006 and December 2007 by agents in ATF’s Tucson Office, which is part of ATF’s Phoenix Field Division.” [U.S. Department of Justice, Office of the Inspector General, Review of ATF’s Operation Fast & Furious, p.27, 9/19/12]THE ATF AND U.S. ATTORNEY’S OFFICE IN ARIZONA BEAR PRIMARY RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE TACTICS USED IN OPERATION FAST & FURIOUSDepartment Of Justice Inspector General Report: “ATF’s Phoenix Field Division, Together With The U.S. Attorney’s Office, Bore Primary Responsibility For The Conduct Of Operations Wide Receiver And Fast And Furious.” “ATF’s Phoenix Field Division, together with the U.S. Attorney’s Office, bore primary responsibility for the conduct of Operations Wide Receiver and Fast and Furious. While we found no evidence that the agents responsible for the cases had improper motives or were trying to accomplish anything other than dismantling a dangerous firearms trafficking organization, we concluded that the conduct and supervision of the investigations was significantly flawed.” [U.S. Department of Justice, Office of the Inspector General, Review of ATF’s Operation Fast & Furious, p.431, 9/19/12]A Report By The Justice Department’s Inspector General Said That ATF Phoenix Special Agent In Charge Newell Mislead His Superiors At ATF Headquarters About The Tactics Used In Operation Fast & Furious.? “[Special Agent in Charge (SAC) William] Newell [of ATF’s Phoenix Field Division] fully supported the strategy in Operations Fast and Furious… We also found instances where Newell furnished incomplete information, and at times made statements that conveyed a misleading impression to ATF Headquarters on matters related to Operation Fast and Furious. … Newell also told us that he ‘pushed for’ the March 5, 2010, briefing because he wanted ATF Headquarters to be fully informed about Operation Fast and Furious and to understand that ‘[t]his is our plan. So that if anybody had an issue with it, speak now or forever hold your peace.’ ATF’s presentation, however, omitted key details about ‘the plan’ that would have alerted ATF executives to problems.” [U.S. Department of Justice, Office of the Inspector General, Review of ATF’s Operation Fast & Furious, p.439, 9/19/12]Pushback: President Obama Does Not Support A Handgun BanINDEPENDENT FACT-CHECKERS HAVE DEBUNKED THE CLAIM THAT PRESIDENT OBAMA SUPPORTS A HANDGUN : The NRA Claim That Obama Supports Banning “The Manufacture, Sale And Possession Of Handguns” Is False. called the claim that Obama supported banning “the manufacture, sale, and possession of handguns” false: “Obama says he does not support any such handgun ban and never has. He supports ‘reasonable restrictions on the sale and possession of handguns’ (not manufacture) and has said a ban is not ‘politically practicable.’” [, 9/22/08]Tampa Bay Times PolitiFact Found Claims That President Obama Endorses A Total Ban On Handguns “Mostly False,” Saying Allegations “Ignore Critical Facts” About His Statements And Record.? “LaPierre said ‘(Obama) endorsed a total ban on the manufacture, sale and possession of all handguns.’ Obama’s 1996 campaign for state Senate did endorse a state-level ban, on a questionnaire from which he has since distanced himself. He never suggested such a law in office, and later questionnaires showed a more nuanced approach, as have his more recent statements on gun control, including those during his time in the U.S. Senate and as president. In fact, his gun-control agenda has earned him failing grades from a prominent gun-control advocacy group. We can’t rule on a shadowy conspiracy to destroy the Constitution in Obama’s second term. But we can say that LaPierre’s claim that Obama endorsed a total ban on handguns contains a small element of truth (a typewritten ‘yes’ on a long-ago questionnaire about a state ban) but ignores critical facts — that is, Obama's statements and record — that would give a different impression. That's our definition of Mostly False.” [Tampa Bay Times, Politifact, 2/13/12]President Obama Supports The Rights Of Gun Owners Under The Second AmendmentPRESIDENT OBAMA BELIEVES THAT THE SECOND AMENDMENT GUARANTEES AN INDIVIDUAL RIGHT TO BEAR ARMSPresident Obama: “I Believe That The Second Amendment Guarantees An Individual Right To Bear Arms.” “Now, like the majority of Americans, I believe that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to bear arms. And the courts have settled that as the law of the land. In this country, we have a strong tradition of gun ownership that's handed from generation to generation. Hunting and shooting are part of our national heritage. And, in fact, my administration has not curtailed the rights of gun owners - it has expanded them, including allowing people to carry their guns in national parks and wildlife refuges.” [Op-Ed: President Obama, Arizona Daily Star, 3/13/11]Senator Obama: “I Am Very Mindful Of The Fact That Sportsmen In America May Have Gone Hunting With Their Fathers, Their Grandfathers, Their Mothers, Their Grandmothers, And That This Is Part Of A Tradition And A Way Of Life That Has To Be Preserved.” “The important point is that I am very mindful of the fact that sportsmen?in America may have gone hunting with their fathers, their grandfathers, their mothers, their grandmothers, and that this is part of a tradition? and a way of life that has to be preserved. And there's nothing that I? will do as president of the United States that will in any way encroach? on the ability of sportsmen to continue that tradition.” [Field & Stream, 9/16/08]PRESIDENT OBAMA HAS EXPANDED, NOT CURTAILED, THE RIGHTS OF GUN OWNERSPresident Obama Has Expanded, Not Curtailed, The Rights Of Gun Owners. “During his tenure, the President has also expanded gun rights by signing laws that allow the possession of firearms in national parks and on Amtrak. And yet, he can't get a nod from the National Rifle Association because those measures were tucked into broader bills Obama liked.” [TIME Magazine, 2/7/2011]: Despite False Rumors, The Only Gun Legislation President Obama Has Signed Was An Expansion Of Gun Owners’ Rights. “The only piece of gun legislation he has signed has been an expansion, not a contraction, of gun owners’ rights: In May, the president?signed credit card legislation?that included a provision allowing loaded and concealed weapons in national parks. That hasn’t stopped gun rights advocates from believing that Obama is going to implement sweeping anti-firearms policies.” [, 12/5/09]The Obama Administration Has Taken Steps To Prevent Gun ViolenceTHE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION HAS WORKED TO STRENGTHEN THE CRIMINAL BACKGROUND CHECK SYSTEM USED WHEN WEAPONS ARE SOLDThe Obama Administration Improved The Amount And Quality Of Information In The National Instant Criminal Background Check System.? “Following last year's killing of six people and the wounding of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords in Tucson, Ariz., Obama called for a series of steps to ‘keep those irresponsible, law-breaking few from getting their hands on a gun in the first place.’ Among those steps was a better federal background check system. The administration said Friday that it has indeed improved the amount and quality of information poured into that system, allowing background checks to be more thorough.” [Associated Press, 7/20/12]The Obama Administration Strengthened The National Instant Criminal Background Check System By Adding Mental Health Record Data And Additional Criminal Records. “But as president, Obama has focused primarily on improving enforcement of existing laws. The Justice Department on Friday released a background memo detailing the administration's efforts to make required background checks more thorough. Examples include better reporting of arrest and conviction records and of people who are prohibited from buying guns for mental-health reasons.” [Washington Post, 7/21/12]THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION HAS PARTNERED WITH LOCAL OFFICIALS AND COMMUNITY GROUPS TO FOSTER INNOVATIVE, EVIDENCE-BASED APPROACHES TO PREVENTING YOUTH VIOLENCE President Obama Created The National Forum On Youth Violence In 2010 To Pool National And Local Resources And Ideas To Prevent And Reduce Youth Violence.? “Launched in 2010 at the direction of President Obama, the forum is a network of communities and federal agencies that share information and support local efforts to prevent and reduce youth violence. ?‘Youth violence is not a problem any of us can solve alone, but by working together – by pooling resources and ideas – we have the ability to reduce youth violence in our communities,’ said Acting Assistant Attorney General Leary.… ?The forum’s federal partners include the Departments of Justice, Education, Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban Development and Labor; the Corporation for National and Community Service; and the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy.”? [U.S. Department Of Justice, Press Release, 9/19/12] ????????The Obama Administration And Local Officials In Six Cities Have Worked To Address Youth Violence, Building Partnerships, Creating Data-Driven Strategies, And Promoting A Balanced Approach. “Teams of youth violence experts from Boston; Chicago; Detroit; Memphis, Tenn.; Salinas, Calif.; and San Jose, Calif., have concluded a two-day meeting of the National Forum on Youth Violence Prevention… The six participating cities developed comprehensive plans to prevent youth and gang violence in their city, using multi-disciplinary partnerships, balanced approaches and data-driven strategies.? They first presented these plans at the Summit on Preventing Youth Violence on April 4-5, 2011, in Washington, D.C.? These plans focus on strategies to reduce violence, improve opportunities for youth, and encourage innovation at the local and federal levels.” [U.S. Department Of Justice, Press Release, 11/1/11]In September 2012, Four Additional Cities Were Competitively Selected To Join Boston, Chicago, Detroit And Others In A White House Initiative To Reduce Youth Violence. “New Orleans, Philadelphia, Minneapolis and Camden, N.J., will join the six original cities in the National Forum on Youth Violence Prevention to reduce youth violence and gang activity and improve public safety. … The new cities were selected through a competitive application process. The six original cities are Boston; Chicago; Detroit; Memphis, Tenn.; Salinas, Calif.; and San Jose, Calif. …Since the forum began, the cities have leveraged new partnerships with foundations and private corporations to prevent youth violence and have initiated a number of programs for youth and families in their communities.” [U.S. Department Of Justice, Press Release, 9/19/12] ????????THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION IS HELPING COMMUNITIES PROVIDE JOB TRAINING, EDUCATION, AND SUPPORT FOR YOUTH AND YOUNG ADULTS RETURNING FROM THE JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEMThe Department Of Labor Awarded Two Types Of Grants Totaling $50 Million To Provide Job Training, Education And Support For Youth And Young Adults Returning From The Juvenile Justice System. “The U.S. Department of Labor today awarded nearly $50 million in two types of grants to 25 community-based organizations that will provide job training, education and support services to youth and young adults returning from the juvenile justice system. ‘These young people deserve a chance to turn their lives around,’ said Secretary of Labor Hilda L. Solis. ‘The federal grants announced today will help vulnerable youth receive the training and support they need to gain valuable job skills and improve their long-term employment prospects.’” [U.S. Department of Labor, 6/21/12]$20 Million In Grants Provided Education And Training Leading To High School Diplomas And Professional Certifications For Formerly Incarcerated Youth Ages 14 And Older Living In High-Poverty, High-Crime Communities. “Four grants totaling approximately $19.5 million will serve formerly incarcerated youth, ages 14 and above, in high-poverty, high-crime communities who have been involved with the juvenile justice system within the past 12 months and never have been involved in the adult criminal system. Grantees will provide education and training leading to high school diplomas and/or industry-recognized credentials for the individuals served with an emphasis on in-demand industries and occupations available within their local communities. Additionally, grantees will be required to competitively select local subgrantees to operate the program in a minimum of five high-poverty, high-crime communities across at least two states.” [U.S. Department of Labor, 6/21/12]CONTRASTPresident Obama Supports The Second Amendment, But Romney Can’t Be TrustedPRESIDENT OBAMA BELIEVES THAT THE SECOND AMENDMENT GUARANTEES AN INDIVIDUAL RIGHT TO BEAR ARMSPresident Obama: “I Believe That The Second Amendment Guarantees An Individual Right To Bear Arms.” “Now, like the majority of Americans, I believe that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to bear arms. And the courts have settled that as the law of the land. In this country, we have a strong tradition of gun ownership that's handed from generation to generation. Hunting and shooting are part of our national heritage. And, in fact, my administration has not curtailed the rights of gun owners - it has expanded them, including allowing people to carry their guns in national parks and wildlife refuges.” [Op-Ed: President Obama, Arizona Daily Star, 3/13/11]Senator Obama: “I Am Very Mindful Of The Fact That Sportsmen In America May Have Gone Hunting With Their Fathers, Their Grandfathers, Their Mothers, Their Grandmothers, And That This Is Part Of A Tradition And A Way Of Life That Has To Be Preserved.” “The important point is that I am very mindful of the fact that sportsmen?in America may have gone hunting with their fathers, their grandfathers, their mothers, their grandmothers, and that this is part of a tradition? and a way of life that has to be preserved. And there's nothing that I? will do as president of the United States that will in any way encroach? on the ability of sportsmen to continue that tradition.” [Field & Stream, 9/16/08]ROMNEY HAS LIED ABOUT HIS HUNTING HISTORY2007: Romney: “I Purchased A Gun When I Was A Young Man.I’ve Been A Hunter Pretty Much All My Life.” [Associated Press, 4/4/07]Romney Had Only Hunted Twice In His Life—Once As A 15 Year Old For Rabbits And Once As A 60 Year Old For Quail During An RGA Outing. “Yet the former Massachusetts governor’s hunting experience is limited to two trips at the bookends of his 60 years: as a 15-year-old, when he hunted rabbits with his cousins on a ranch in Idaho, and last year, when he shot quail on a fenced game preserve in Georgia. Last year’s trip was an outing with major donors to the Republican Governors Association, which Romney headed at the time. An aide said Wednesday that Romney was not trying to mislead anyone, although he confirmed Romney had been hunting only on those occasions in his life.” [Associated Press, 4/4/07]Romney Lied About Owning A Gun. “Romney appears to be stepping up his efforts to portray himself as a gun-friendly candidate, though some gun-rights activists in important primary states say his past positions will hurt him politically. On Wednesday, Romney said on an Internet podcast, ‘The Glenn and Helen Show,’ that he hopes states would continue to ease regulations on gun owners, and he expressed enthusiasm for guns and hunting. ‘I have a gun of my own. I go hunting myself. I’m a member of the NRA and believe firmly in the right to bear arms,’ Romney said. Asked by reporters at the gun show Friday whether he personally owned the gun, Romney said he did not.” [Boston Globe, 1/14/07]Boston Globe’s Joan Vennochi: “Leave It To Mitt Romney To Shoot Himself In The Foot With A Gun He Doesn’t Own.” [Vennochi, Boston Globe, 4/8/07]1/10/07: Romney Said “I Have A Gun Of My Own. I Go Hunting Myself. I’m A Member Of The NRA And Believe Firmly In The Right To Bear Arms.”? [Boston Globe, 1/14/07]1/12/07: Romney Admitted He Didn’t Personally Own A Gun But Said His Son Josh Owned Two And Kept Them At The Family Vacation Home In Utah. “Asked by reporters at the gun show Friday whether he personally owned the gun, Romney said he did not. He said one of his sons, Josh, keeps two guns at the family vacation home in Utah, and he uses them ‘from time to time.’” [Boston Globe, 1/14/07]ROMNEY HAS FLIP-FLOPPED ON THE NRA1994: Romney: “I Don’t Line Up With The NRA.”? [Boston Globe, 1/14/07]2006: Romney Only Became A Member Of The NRA The Year Before He Ran For President. “Romney became a lifetime member of the NRA in 2006.” [AP, 9/21/07]Romney Admitted He Joined The NRA To Get Their Endorsement. “It helps explain why Romney joined the NRA last August, signing up not just as a supporter but a designated "Lifetime" member, and why he has softened his gun control positions. Romney told a Derry, N.H., audience, ‘I’m after the NRA’s endorsement. I’m not sure they’ll give it to me. I hope they will. I also joined because if I’m going to ask for their endorsement, they’re going to ask for mine.’” [AP, 4/4/07]ROMNEY HAS FLIP-FLOPPED ON THE ASSAULT WEAPONS BAN2007: Romney Said That He’d Support An Assault Weapons Ban. Romney said, “Well, let’s get the record straight. First of all, there’s no question that I support Second Amendment rights. But I also support an assault weapon ban.” [Fox News Debate, 5/16/07]2008: Romney: “I Do Not Support Any New Legislation Of An Assault Weapon Ban Nature, Including That Against Semiautomatic Weapons.” [Florida Atlantic University Debate, 1/24/08]2012: Romney: “I Don't Happen To Believe That America Needs New Gun Laws.” [NBC Nightly News, NBC, 7/25/12]ATTACKRomney Flip-Flopped On The NRAIN 1994, ROMNEY SAID “I DON’T LINE UP WITH THE NRA”…1994: Romney: “I Don’t Line Up With The NRA.”? In his 1994 US Senate run, Romney backed two gun-control measures strongly opposed by the National Rifle Association and other gun-rights groups: the Brady Bill, which imposed a five-day waiting period on gun sales, and a ban on certain assault weapons.? ‘That’s not going to make me the hero of the NRA,’ Romney told the Boston Herald in 1994.? At another campaign stop that year, he told reporters: ‘I don’t line up with the NRA.’? And as the GOP gubernatorial candidate in 2002, Romney lauded the state’s strong laws during a debate against Democrat Shannon O’Brien. ‘We do have tough gun laws in Massachusetts; I support them,’ he said. ‘I won’t chip away at them; I believe they protect us and provide for our safety.’ [Boston Globe, 1/14/07]1994: Romney Said His Position On Gun Control Laws Was “Not Going To Make Me The Hero Of The NRA.” “In an interview with the Boston Herald during the 1994 campaign, Romney positioned himself as a moderate outsider, warning special interest groups to stay out of the race and saying he supported a ban on assault rifles and the Brady gun control law.? ‘That’s not going to make me the hero of the NRA (National Rifle Association),’ he said at the time. ‘I don’t line up with a lot of special interest groups.’” [Associated Press, 1/14/07]…BUT THEN BECAME AN NRA MEMBER ONLY THE YEAR BEFORE HE RAN FOR PRESIDENT TO GET THEIR ENDORSEMENT2006: Romney Only Became A Member Of The NRA The Year Before He Ran For President. “Romney became a lifetime member of the NRA in 2006.” [AP, 9/21/07]Romney Admitted He Joined The NRA To Get Their Endorsement. “It helps explain why Romney joined the NRA last August, signing up not just as a supporter but a designated "Lifetime" member, and why he has softened his gun control positions. Romney told a Derry, N.H., audience, ‘I’m after the NRA’s endorsement. I’m not sure they’ll give it to me. I hope they will. I also joined because if I’m going to ask for their endorsement, they’re going to ask for mine.’” [AP, 4/4/07]Romney Signed An Assault Weapons Ban And Flip-Flopped On The Federal Ban2002: ROMNEY CAMPAIGNED FOR GOVERNOR ON TOUGH GUN CONTROL LAWSRomney Pledged To Veto Any Effort To Weaken Gun Control Laws. “Romney’s pledge to veto efforts to weaken the state’s gun-control laws is a priority for gun-control advocates, said state Sen. Cheryl A. Jacques (D-Needham). ‘He’s going to get intense pressure from the gun lobby,’ said Jacques.” [Boston Herald, 11/10/02]Romney Said, “We Do Have Tough Gun Laws In Massachusetts; I Support Them; I Won’t Chip Away At Them; I Believe They Protect Us And Provide For Our Safety.” ?“It’s theme that would carry over into Romney’s 2002 campaign for governor.? During a debate with Democratic candidate Shannon O’Brien, Romney said he would do nothing to change the state’s firearms statutes.? ‘We do have tough gun laws in Massachusetts; I support them; I won’t chip away at them; I believe they protect us and provide for our safety.’ he said.”? [Associated Press, 1/14/07]AS GOVERNOR, ROMNEY INCREASED FEES ON GUN OWNERSRomney Budget Quadrupled Fee for Firearms Identification & License to Carry. “Also drawing criticism is quadrupling of fees charged to gun owners this year. Under the budget, fees will rise from $25 to $100 for both a firearms identification card and a license to carry firearms, which are required by state law. “In general, the government has failed to meet its obligations and now it’s passing the buck,” said Michael Yacino, executive director of the Gun Owners Action League, which has opposed the fee increases. ‘It just shows they don’t have any answers.’” [Quincy Patriot-Ledger, 7/9/03]ROMNEY SIGNED INTO LAW A PERMANENT ASSAULT WEAPONS BAN IN MASSACHUSETTS…Romney Became The First Governor In The Nation To Sign A Permanent Ban On Assault Weapons Calling Them “Instruments Of Destruction With The Sole Purpose Of Hunting Down And Killing People.” “But perhaps the most significant gun legislation Romney signed as governor was a 2004 measure instituting a permanent ban on assault weapons. The Legislature mirrored the law after the federal assault weapons ban, which was set to expire. According to activists at the time, the bill made Massachusetts the first state to enact its own such ban, and Romney hailed the move. These guns are not made for recreation or self-defense," he was quoted as saying. ‘They are instruments of destruction with the sole purpose of hunting down and killing people.’” [Boston Globe, 1/14/07]Romney Signed “One Of The Toughest Assault Weapons Laws In The Country.” “And as governor, Romney signed one of the toughest assault weapons laws in the country. The state ban mirrored a national ban set to expire at the time. Assault weapons bans are typically opposed by gun rights activists, who say the guns are rarely used in crimes and have a legitimate purpose for target practice and self protection.” [Associated Press, 1/14/07]Romney: “I Don't Believe That We Have To Have Assault Weapons As Part Of Our Personal Arsenal.” Romney: “I believe the people should have the right to bear arms, but I don't believe that we have to have assault weapons as part of our personal arsenal.” Halpin: “So you're -- so you're...” Romney: “In my state I just signed a piece of legislation extending the ban on certain assault weapons in our state.” [Fox News, Hannity And Colmes, 8/4/04]…AND WOULD HAVE SIGNED A FEDERAL ASSAULT WEAPONS BAN…2008: Romney Said He Would Have Signed The Federal Assault Weapons Bill. Romney said, “I do support the Second Amendment, and I believe that this is an individual right of citizens and not a right of government. And I hope the Supreme Court reaches that same conclusion. I also, like the president, would have signed the assault weapon ban that came to his desk. I said I would have supported that and signed a similar bill in our state… And so we signed that in Massachusetts, and I said I’d -- I would would support that at the federal level, just as the president said he would. It did not pass at the federal level.” [Florida Atlantic University Debate, 1/24/08]2007: Romney Said That He’d Support An Assault Weapons Ban. Romney said, “Well, let’s get the record straight. First of all, there’s no question that I support Second Amendment rights. But I also support an assault weapon ban.” [Fox News Debate, 5/16/07]…BUT NOW OPPOSES A FEDERAL BAN ON ASSAULT WEAPONS2008: Romney: “I Do Not Support Any New Legislation Of An Assault Weapon Ban Nature, Including That Against Semiautomatic Weapons.” Romney said, “And so we signed that in Massachusetts, and I said I’d -- I would support that at the federal level, just as the president said he would. It did not pass at the federal level. I do not believe we need new legislation. I do not support any new legislation of an assault weapon ban nature, including that against semiautomatic weapons. I instead believe that we have laws in place that, if they’re implemented and enforced, will provide the protection and the safety of the American people. But I do not support any new legislation, and I do support the right of individuals to bear arms, whether for hunting purposes or for protection purposes or any other reasons. That’s the right that people have.” [Florida Atlantic University Debate, 1/24/08]2012: Romney: “I Don't Happen To Believe That America Needs New Gun Laws.” [NBC Nightly News, NBC, 7/25/12]DEFENSE & FOREIGN POLICYPRO-POTUSPresident Obama Has Followed Through On Commitments To End The War In Iraq, Bring Justice To Osama Bin Laden, Refocus On Al-Qaeda And Set A Clear Timeline For Withdrawal From AfghanistanAs A Candidate, Senator Obama Said He Would End The War, “Because It Is The Right Thing To Do For Our National Security.” “So when I am Commander-in-Chief, I will set a new goal on Day One: I will end this war. Not because politics compels it. Not because our troops cannot bear the burden- as heavy as it is. But because it is the right thing to do for our national security, and it will ultimately make us safer.” [Senator Obama, 3/19/08]On December 18, 2011, The Last Convoy Of US Troops Crossed The Border Out Of Iraq, Officially Ending The War In Iraq. “The last convoy of American troops drove into Kuwait on Sunday morning, punctuating the end of the nearly nine-year war in?Iraq.” [NYT, 12/18/11]Upon Taking Office, President Obama Announced A Strategy To Refocus U.S. Efforts In Afghanistan And Pakistan And “Disrupt, Dismantle And Defeat Al Qaeda.” ?“I want the American people to understand that we have a clear and focused goal:? to disrupt, dismantle and defeat al Qaeda in Pakistan and Afghanistan, and to prevent their return to either country in the future.? That's the goal that must be achieved.? That is a cause that could not be more just.? And to the terrorists who oppose us, my message is the same:? We will defeat you.” [Remarks President Obama, 3/27/09]May 2012: President Obama Announced That By The End Of 2014, Afghan Security Forces Would Be Fully Responsible For The Security Of Their Country And US Troops Would Come Home. “This month, at a NATO Summit in Chicago, our coalition will set a goal for Afghan forces to be in the lead for combat operations across the country next year. International troops will continue to train, advise and assist the Afghans, and fight alongside them when needed. But we will shift into a support role as Afghans step forward. As we do, our troops will be coming home. Last year, we removed 10,000 U.S. troops from Afghanistan. Another 23,000 will leave by the end of the summer. After that, reductions will continue at a steady pace, with more and more of our troops coming home. And as our coalition agreed, by the end of 2014 the Afghans will be fully responsible for the security of their country.” [Remarks by President Obama, 5/1/12]Shortly After Taking Office, President Obama Directed CIA Director Panetta To Make The Killing Or Capturing Of Osama Bin Laden A Top Priority. “And so shortly after taking office, I directed Leon Panetta, the director of the CIA, to make the killing or capture of bin Laden the top priority of our war against al Qaeda, even as we continued our broader efforts to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat his network. [President Obama, 5/2/11]On May 1, 2011, President Obama Announced An Operation Into Pakistan Had Successfully Killed Osama Bin Laden. “In a late-night appearance in the East Room of the White House, Mr. Obama declared that “justice has been done” as he disclosed that American military and?C.I.A.?operatives had finally cornered Bin Laden, the leader of?Al Qaeda, who had eluded them for nearly a decade“ [NYT, 5/1/11]More Than Two-Thirds Of Al Qaeda’s Senior Leadership Has Been Eliminated Since President Obama Took Office.Ask Osama bin Laden and the 22 out of 30 top al-Qaeda leaders who’ve been taken off the field whether I engage in appeasement,” the president fired back at an impromptu news conference at the White House.[President Obama, 6/28/11]The Obama Administration Has Taken “Direct Action” Against Al Qaeda Affiliates In Yemen And Somalia. “Opening the window just a little further into his secret war on terrorists,?President Obama?publicly acknowledged for the first time on Friday that United States military forces had taken ‘direct action’ against groups affiliated with?Al Qaeda?in Somalia?and?Yemen. In a letter to Congress, Mr. Obama said American forces had engaged in ‘a limited number’ of operations against members of the Shabab in Somalia and Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula in Yemen, arguing that both posed a terrorist threat to “the United States and our interests.” [New York Times, 6/15/12]President Obama Has Worked With Russia On Issues Of Mutual Interest And Been Clear When We DisagreeTHE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION HAS RESET RELATIONS WITH RUSSIA AND GAINED RUSSIA’S COOPERATION ON ISSUES OF MUTUAL INTERESTThe New START Treaty Reduces The Number Of Strategic Offensive Arms In Both Russia And The United States. “Under the Treaty, the U.S. and Russia will be limited to significantly fewer strategic arms within seven years from the date the Treaty enters into force.? Each Party has the flexibility to determine for itself the structure of its strategic forces within the aggregate limits of the Treaty.? These limits are based on a rigorous analysis conducted by Department of Defense planners in support of the 2010 Nuclear Posture Review.” [White House Press Release, 3/26/10]Former Defense Secretaries Harold Brown, Frank Carlucci, Bill Cohen, Bill Perry, And James Schlesinger As Well As Former National Security Advisers Steven Hadley And Brent Scowcroft Supported New START Ratification. “Biden highlighted a string of GOP national security officials under Republican presidents who favor the treaty besides Rice: Former Defense Secretaries Harold Brown, Frank Carlucci, Bill Cohen, Bill Perry and James Schlesinger, and former Secretaries of State Jim Baker, Larry Eagleburger, Henry Kissinger, George Schultz, Colin Powell, and former National Security Advisers Steve Hadley and Brent Scowcroft.” [Politics Daily, 12/08/10]2012: Russia Announced That It May Allow NATO To Use An Airfield In Russia To Support Its Efforts In Afghanistan. “?A new deal allowing the United States and its NATO allies to use a Russian air base for transit of troops and military cargo to Afghanistan would help ensure Russia's own security, Russia's foreign minister said?Wednesday … The new agreement would for the first time allow alliance members to set up a logistics facility for troops and cargo on Russian?territory.” [AP, 3/14/12]With President Obama’s Leadership, The United States Gained Russia’s Support In Passing The Most Comprehensive International Sanctions The Iranian Government Has Ever Faced. “The?United Nations?imposed a new slate of sanctions on?Iran?today in an attempt to force it to comply with international demands over its nuclear programme – even though Tehran has insisted punitive measures will not change anything. The UN security council approved resolution 1929 authorising the sanctions. Twelve countries voted in favour - including crucially all five permanent members, Britain, China, France, Russia and the US.” [The Guardian, 6/9/10]Citing Sanctions, Russia Banned The Export Of Major Weapons Systems To Iran. “Russia?interprets the latest round of?United Nations sanctions against?Iran?as prohibiting all exports of major weapons systems to that country, President?Dmitri A. Medvedev?announced Wednesday, ending some Russian equivocation on whether an advanced air defense system would fall under the ban.” [NYT, 9/22/10]WE HAVE BEEN CLEAR WITH THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT WHEN WE DISAGREEThe Obama Administration Has Called Russia “On The Wrong Side Of History” In Syria. “A frustrated White House declared that Russia and China placed themselves on the "'wrong side of history" and the "wrong side of the Syrian people" Thursday by vetoing a U.N. resolution pressuring President Bashar Assad to end the bloody conflict in his country.” [AP, 7/19/12]The Obama Administration Condemned The Disproportionate Sentence Given To Members Of the Dissident Punk Band, Pussy Riot. “The White House on Friday condemned the ‘disproportionate’?two-year prison sentence a Russian judge imposed on members of the punk band Pussy Riot,?found guilty of ‘hooliganism’ for an event mocking Russian President Vladimir Putin. ‘The United States is disappointed by the verdict, including the disproportionate sentences that were granted,’ spokesman Josh Earnest told reporters.” [Yahoo News, 8/18/12]In Front Of Russia’s Foreign Minister, Secretary Clinton Voiced “Serious Concerns” About Russian Elections And Called For An Investigation Into Reports Of Fraud and Intimidation. “As Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov looked on, Clinton told the group the United States had ‘serious concern about the conduct of the elections,’ and called for a ‘full investigation’ of all reports of fraud and intimidation …The Russian people, like people everywhere, deserve the right to have their voices heard and their votes counted,’ Clinton said. ‘And that means they deserve free, fair, transparent elections and leaders who are accountable to them.’" [CNN, 12/6/11]President Obama And Military Leadership Have A Drawdown Strategy That Maintains Our Unquestioned Military DominanceNOW THAT THE WAR IN IRAQ HAS COME TO AN END AND WE BEGIN TO TRANSITION OUT OF AFGHANISTAN, PRESIDENT OBAMA HAS DEVELOPED A STRATEGY TO PREPARE FOR THE CHALLENGES OF THE 21st CENTURY AND MAINTAIN THE UNITED STATES’ UNQUESTIONED MILITARY DOMINANCE THE DEFENSE STRATEGY AND BUDGET WERE DEVELOPED IN CLOSE CONSULTATION WITH MILITARY LEADERSHIP, AND WILL SUPPORT OUR PRIORITIES WHILE SLOWING THE RATE OF SPENDING GROWTHThe Defense Strategy And Budget Were Crafted In Close Consultation With Our Nation’s Military Leadership. “We need a start -- we need a smart, strategic set of priorities.? The new guidance that the Defense Department is releasing today does just that.? I want to thank Secretary Panetta and General Dempsey for their extraordinary leadership during this process.? I want to thank the service secretaries and chiefs, the combatant commanders and so many defense leaders -- military and civilian, active, Guard and reserve -- for their contributions.? Many of us met repeatedly -- asking tough questions, challenging our own assumptions and making hard choices.? And we’ve come together today around an approach that will keep our nation safe and our military the finest that the world have ever known.” [Remarks by President Obama, 1/5/12]The President’s Defense Strategy Places A Greater Emphasis On Advanced Technologies, Such As Cybersecurity, As Well As Confronting Iran. “The strategy, if carried out, would significantly reshape the world's most powerful military following the buildup that was a key part of President George W. Bush's ‘war on terrorism’ in Iraq and?Afghanistan. Cyberwarfare and unmanned drones would continue to grow in priority, as would countering attempts by?China?and Iran to block U.S. power projection capabilities in areas like the South China Sea and the Strait of Hormuz.” [Reuters, 1/6/12]President Obama Made It Clear The New Defense Strategy Would Strengthen Our Presence In Asia And Continue To Invest In Critical Partnerships Like NATO. “As I made clear in Australia, we will be strengthening our presence in the Asia Pacific, and budget reductions will not come at the expense of that critical region.? We’re going to continue investing in our critical partnerships and alliances, including NATO, which has demonstrated time and again -- most recently in Libya -- that it’s a force multiplier.? We will stay vigilant, especially in the Middle East.” [Remarks by President Obama, 1/5/12]President Obama’s Budget Will Not Decrease Defense Spending In The Years Ahead, But Will Control The Growth Of Spending. “Based on previous budgets, Peterson said she expects Obama would continue to increase military spending, but at lower rates than in the years since 9/11. She predicts the president’s reductions won’t put a huge dent in the decade-long military build up. ‘Neither (candidate) is going to significantly change the mission of defense. We’re talking percentage points,’ she said. ‘You have to keep the big picture in these “increases” and “decreases.” Everyone in the military knows there’s excess capacity and there’s a changing nature of warfare. But the idea that bases across the state will go up in puff of smoke or companies that have (Defense Department) contracts will go broke will not happen.’” [Charlotte Observer, 10/2/12]MILITARY LEADERS AGREE THAT REFORMING DEFENSE SPENDING MAKE SENSEChairman Of The Joint Chiefs Dempsey Said The President’s Defense Strategy Had “Real Buy-In” Among Defense Department And Military Leadership. “This is a real strategy.? It represents real choices.? And I'm here today to assure you that it has real buy-in among our senior military and civilian leadership.? This is not the strategy of a military in decline.? This is a strategy -- and a joint force -- on which the nation can depend.”[General Martin Dempsey, Briefing, 1/5/12]Chairman Of The Joint Chiefs Of Staff Dempsey Said The President’s Defense Budget Will “Maintain Our Decisive Edge.” "’They will not lead to a military in decline,’ Dempsey said. ‘Rather, this budget will maintain our military's decisive edge and help sustain America's global leadership.’" [USA Today, 2/14/12]Defense Secretary Leon Panetta On Proposed Budget Cuts: “We Owe It To Our Citizens To Provide Both Strong Fiscal Discipline And A Strong National Defense.” On an August 1, 2011 Situation Room, a clip was shown of Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, who said, of proposed budget cuts: “I don't deny that there are going to be tough decisions that have to be made and tough choices that have to be made. But we owe it to our citizens to provide both strong fiscal discipline and a strong national defense.” [CNN, The Situation Room, 8/1/11]Announcing The New Defense Strategic Guidance, Secretary Panetta Said The New Defense Strategy Was Designed To Have The Flexibility To Confront Several Threat Simultaneously. “Our strategy review concluded that the United States must have the capability to fight several conflicts at the same time.? We are not confronting, obviously, the threats of the past; we are confronting the threats of the 21st century.? And that demands greater flexibility to shift and deploy forces to be able to fight and defeat any enemy anywhere.? How we defeat the enemy may very well vary across conflicts.? But make no mistake, we will have the capability to confront and defeat more than one adversary at a time.”?[Secretary Leon Panetta, Department of Defense, 1/5/12]Pushback: Attacks In BenghaziREPUBLICAN POLITICAL ATTACKS ON THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION’S RESPONSE IN BENGHAZI DEMONSTRATE A MISUNDERSTANDING OF HOW INTELLIGENCE WORKSThe Atlantic: Republican Attacks On The Obama Administrations Response To The Attack In Libya Demonstrate “How Profoundly The Accusers Misunderstand How Intelligence Works.” “High-profile?Republican?politicians?and their?media?surrogates?are accusing President Obama and other top White House staff of ‘lying’ to the public about last month's?deadly assault on America's diplomatic post?in Benghazi, Libya. This accusation not only misses the mark but also demonstrates how profoundly the accusers misunderstand how intelligence works. In fact, the White House's evolving timeline for what happened in Benghazi is proof of precisely the opposite of what the breathless accusers suggest -- it is a sign of a normal, healthy intelligence process.” [The Atlantic, 10/2/12]THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION HAS PROVIDED THE BEST INFORMATION IT HAD ON THE ATTACK ON THE US MISSION IN BENGHAZI AS IT BECAME AVAILABLEPresident Obama Has Been Clear From The Start That His Priorities Are The Ensuring The Security Of Americans Serving Abroad And “[Bringing] To Justice The Killers Who Attacked Our People. “The United States condemns in the strongest terms this outrageous and shocking attack.? We're working with the government of Libya to secure our diplomats.? I've also directed my administration to increase our security at diplomatic posts around the world.? And make no mistake, we will work with the Libyan government to bring to justice the killers who attacked our people.” [Remarks by President Obama, 9/12/12]September 12: In His September 12 Rose Garden Address, President Obama Referred To The Attack On The US Mission In Benghazi As An “Act Of Terror”. “No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for.? Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America.? We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act.? And make no mistake, justice will be done. [Remarks by President Obama, 9/12/12]The Office Of The Director Of National Intelligence Initially Assessed That The Attack In Benghazi Began Spontaneously, But Now Believes It Was Coordinated By Extremist Elements. “As the Intelligence Community collects and analyzes more information related to the attack,?our understanding of the event continues to evolve. In the immediate aftermath, there was information that led us to assess that the attack began spontaneously following protests earlier that day at our embassy in Cairo. We provided that initial assessment to Executive Branch officials and members of Congress, who used that information to discuss the attack publicly and provide updates as they became available. Throughout our investigation we continued to emphasize that information gathered was preliminary and evolving. As we learned more about the attack, we revised our initial assessment to reflect new information indicating that it was a deliberate and organized terrorist attack carried out by extremists. It remains unclear if any group or person exercised overall command and control of the attack, and if extremist group leaders directed their members to participate.” [Shawn Turner, Office of the Director of National Intelligence, 9/28/12]The Obama Administration Is Working To Create An Elite Counterterrorism Force In Libya. “The Pentagon and State Department are speeding up efforts to help the Libyan government create a commando force to combat Islamic extremists like the ones who killed the American ambassador in?Libya?last month and to help counter the country’s fractious militias, according to internal government documents…American Special Operations forces could conduct much of the training, as they have with counterterrorism forces in Pakistan and Yemen, American officials said.” [New York Times, 10/15/12]Pushback: President Obama Has Abandoned Missile DefensePRESIDENT OBAMA HAS SUPPORTED AND SECURED SUPPORT FOR A STRONG COST-EFFECTIVE MISSILE DEFENSE SYSTEMIn 2009, President Obama Announced the European Phased Adaptive Approach To Deploy Proven and Cost-Effective Missile Defense Capabilities More Quickly. “In September 2009, on the recommendation of the Secretary of Defense and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the President announced the European Phased Adaptive Approach (EPAA) for missile defense to provide that protection sooner and more comprehensively. Over the past two years, working together with our NATO Allies, the Administration has achieved significant progress in implementing that approach, and we are on a path to achieve the milestones the President outlined.” [White House, 09/15/11]President Obama Pursued A Missile Defense System That Is Less Expensive Than The Bush Administration’s Fixed System. “The missile defense system approved Friday is different from the fixed-missile defense that President?George W. Bush?initiated and that proved controversial. The idea is to have a phased system of radars and antimissile missiles that would be less expensive than the Bush system. The NATO spokesman, James Appathurai, said the nearly $1.5 billion cost could be managed over 10 years.” [New York Times, 11/19/10]In May 2012, NATO Announced That The Missile Defense System Had Achieved Interim Capability And Was Active. “NATO leaders declared that the Alliance now has an interim ballistic missile defence capability at their Summit in Chicago on 21 May, marking the first step in the development of a NATO missile defence system. [NATO, 5/20/12]Headline: “Obama Is Getting Missile Defense Right In Europe.” “Obama Is Getting Missile Defense Right in Europe…President Obama inherited a system from George Bush that ignored all the flawed assumptions about missile defense in Europe. Obama thus made a wise shift away from a senseless plan to deploy a system in Poland and the Czech Republic, replacing it with a limited, but more effective, system that focuses on actual emerging threats and existing technology…The new architecture for ballistic missile defense in Europe (the European Phased Adaptive Approach) bolsters American national security because it aligns capabilities with threats…The new architecture for ballistic missile defense in Europe (the?European Phased Adaptive Approach) bolsters American national security because it aligns capabilities with threats.” [Huffington Post, 5/8/12]President Obama’s Missile Defense Plan Protects More Of Europe Than President Bush’s. “The Bush plan, which included interceptors and radars in Poland and the Czech Republic, left most of southern Europe uncovered -- a problem the Obama plan seeks to fix…The Obama plan -- which focuses on Aegis cruisers at sea, and then deploys similar systems on land, provides a credible foundation for a new look at NATO collective defense -- relevant to all allies.” [Huffington Post, 5/8/12]President Obama’s Missile Defense System Placed Antimissile Batteries Closer To Tehran. “First among those weapons is the Shahab III, the missile that can reach Israel and parts of Europe...That standoff has fed the conviction inside the White House that the Iranian threat needs to be countered. But officials argued Thursday that the faster, and surer, way to accomplish that goal was to scrap Mr. Bush’s plan, which would have based antimissile batteries too far from Iran to be useful against short- and medium-range missiles, and put them closer to Tehran.” [New York Times, 9/17/09]President Obama Strongly Supported The Pentagon’s Decision To Stop Buying F-22s, And So Did Sen.? McCainPRESIDENT OBAMA STRONGLY SUPPORTED THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE’S DECISION TO STOP BUYING F-22s, AN AIRCRAFT SEN. MCCAIN CRITICIZED AS “EXPENSIVE” AND “CORROSIVE”President Obama Strongly Supported The Department Of Defense’s Decision To Stop Buying F-22s. “As Commander-in-Chief, I will do whatever it takes to defend the American people, which is why we’ve increased our funding for our military, and why we will always give our men and women in uniform the equipment and support that they need to get the job done. But I reject the notion that we have to waste billions of taxpayer dollars on outdated and unnecessary defense projects to keep this nation secure… And that's why I'm grateful that the Senate just voted against an additional $1.75 billion to buy F-22 fighter jets that military experts and members of both parties say we do not need.” [Remarks by President Obama, 7/21/09]Secretary Gates Called For The End Of F-22 Production To Finance A Fifth General Tactical Fighter Capability. “To sustain U.S. air superiority, I am committed to building a fifth generation tactical fighter capability that can be produced in quantity at sustainable cost. Therefore, I will recommend increasing the buy of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter from the 14 aircraft bought in FY09 to 30 in FY10, with corresponding funding increases from $6.8 billion to $11.2 billion. We would plan to buy 513 F-35s over the five-year defense plan, and, ultimately, plan to buy 2,443….?We will end production of the F-22 fighter at 187 – representing 183 planes plus four recommended for inclusion in the FY 2009 supplemental.” [Remarks by Secretary Gates, 4/6/09]Senator McCain Criticized The F-22, Calling It Potentially “The Most Expensive, Corroding, Hanger Queen Ever In the History Of Modern Aviation.” “Lockheed Martin Corp.’s F-22 jet is among several U.S. weapons that are flawed, waste taxpayer dollars and benefit from the military-industrial alliance, Senator John McCain said today. Lockheed’s F-22 ‘may very well become the most expensive, corroding, hangar queen ever in the history of modern aviation,’ McCain, a Republican from Arizona, said in remarks as prepared remarks for delivery on the Senate floor.” [Bloomberg, 12/19/11]President Obama Has Consistently Spoken Out In Support Of Democratic Movements In the Arab WorldPRESIDENT OBAMA HAS CONSISTENTLY SPOKEN OUT IN SUPPORT OF DEMOCRATIC MOVEMENTS IN THE ARAB WORLDIn His First Year In Office, President Obama Traveled To Cairo Called On Governments To Listen To The Voices Of Their People. “I do have an unyielding belief that all people yearn for certain things:? the ability to speak your mind and have a say in how you are governed; confidence in the rule of law and the equal administration of justice; government that is transparent and doesn't steal from the people; the freedom to live as you choose.? These are not just American ideas; they are human rights.? And that is why we will support them everywhere.” [Remarks by the President on a New Beginning, 6/4/09]President Obama Made It Clear The United States Would Respect The Voices Of All Elected, Peaceful Governments. “America respects the right of all peaceful and law-abiding voices to be heard around the world, even if we disagree with them.? And we will welcome all elected, peaceful governments -- provided they govern with respect for all their people.” [Remarks by the President on a New Beginning, 6/4/09]When The Government Of Tunisia Began To Use Violence Against Its Citizens, President Obama Spoke Out And Applauded The Courage Of The Tunisian People. “I condemn and deplore the use of violence against citizens peacefully voicing their opinion in Tunisia, and I applaud the courage and dignity of the Tunisian people. The United States stands with the entire international community in bearing witness to this brave and determined struggle for the universal rights that we must all uphold, and we will long remember the images of the Tunisian people seeking to make their voices heard.” [Statement by the President on Events in Tunisia, 1/14/11] When Mubarak’s Government Began To Crack Down On Protestors, President Obama Spoke Up For The Egyptian People’s Universal “Right To Peaceful Assembly and Association.” “I want to be very clear in calling upon the Egyptian authorities to refrain from any violence against peaceful protestors. The people of Egypt have rights that are universal.? That includes the right to peaceful assembly and association, the right to free speech, and the ability to determine their own destiny.? These are human rights.? And the United States will stand up for them everywhere.” [Remarks by the President in the Situation in Egypt, 1/28/11]President Obama Strongly Condemned The Syrian Regimes Assault And Called On President Assad To Step Aside. “I strongly condemn the Syrian government’s unspeakable assault against the people of Homs and I offer my deepest sympathy to those who have lost loved ones.? Assad must halt his campaign of killing and crimes against his own people now.? He must step aside and allow a democratic transition to proceed immediately…?The United States and our international partners support the Syrian people in achieving their aspirations and will continue to assist the Syrian people toward that goal.” [Statement by the President on Syria, 2/4/12]President Obama Directed His Administration To Provide “Non-Lethal” Aid To The Syrian Opposition. “Turkey?and the United States plan to provide ‘nonlethal’ assistance, like communications equipment and medical supplies, directly to opposition groups inside?Syria, and will urge other allies to do so as well, the White House deputy national security adviser said on Sunday … On Sunday an administration official, speaking on the condition of anonymity, confirmed that the United States had already begun to supply some aid, including communications gear, to the rebel Free Syrian Army. The agreement with Turkey would formalize and increase that aid, though officials insist that no weaponry would be sent.” [New York Times, 3/25/12]President Obama Forcefully Spoke Out In Support Of The Iranian People’s Efforts To Make Their Voices Heard And “Strongly Condemned” The “Unjust Actions” Of The Iranian Government.? “In his strongest comments since the crisis erupted 10 days ago, Mr. Obama used unambiguous language to assail the Iranian government during a news conference at the White House, calling himself ‘appalled and outraged by the threats, beatings and imprisonments of the past few days.’” [New York Times, 6/23/09]President Obama Has Made It Clear He Will Not Allow A Nuclear Iran And Has Increased Pressure On the RegimePRESIDENT OBAMA HAS MADE IT CLEAR HE WILL NOT ALLOW A NUCLEAR IRAN AND HAS INCREASED PRESSURE ON THE REGIMEPresident Obama Has Made It Clear That He Does Not Have A “Policy Of Containment,” But A “Policy To Prevent Iran From Obtaining A Nuclear Weapon” And Will “Take No Options Off The Table.” “I have said that when it comes to preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, I will take no options off the table, and I mean what I say.?That includes all elements of American power:? A political effort aimed at isolating Iran; a diplomatic effort to sustain our coalition and ensure that the Iranian program is monitored; an economic effort that imposes crippling sanctions; and, yes, a military effort to be prepared for any contingency. Iran’s leaders should understand that I do not have a policy of containment; I have a policy to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.?” [Remarks by the President at the AIPAC Policy Conference, 04/04/12]National Journal Fact Check: Contrary To Romney’s Claims, The “Obama Administration Has Already Put In Place The Toughest Sanctions Ever Imposed On The Iranian Government.”? “Mitt Romney claimed Wednesday night in the CNN debate that President Obama did not install stringent sanctions against Iran in its effort to derail its nuclear program, but top U.S. intelligence and defense officials disagree. Obama ‘should have placed crippling sanctions against Iran. He did not,’ Romney said. The Obama administration has already put in place the toughest sanctions ever imposed on the Iranian government, including new measures targeting, for the first time, Iran’s entire financial system. Obama on New Year's Eve also signed into law a raft of tough new sanctions that would penalize any foreign financial institution that does business with the Central Bank of Iran. As part of broader U.S.-led efforts to exert pressure on Iran, the European Union has agreed to ban new contracts to buy, transport or import Iranian crude oil.” [National Journal, 2/22/12]Foreign Policy’s David Rothkopf: The Effectiveness Of President Obama’s Sanctions Regime Displayed A Shared Purpose That Would Have Previously Seemed “Far-Fetched.” “In recent days it has become clear that the sanctions against Iran are working vastly better than anyone should have expected. The Europeans are now tightening them further with a planned oil embargo against the Iranians -- a display of unity and shared purpose within the Atlantic Alliance that might at one time have seemed as far-fetched as the idea that sanctions could work in the first place.” [David Rothkopf, Foreign Policy, 1/5/12]US And International Sanctions Have Pushed Iranian Oil Production “To Its Lowest Level For More Than Two Decades.” “Iranian oil production has plunged to its lowest level for more than two decades because of the?impact of US and European sanctions, the International Energy Agency has said in a report that highlights the effectiveness of the sanctions. The IEA, the western countries’ energy watchdog, on Friday said Tehran produced just 2.63m barrels a day in September, the lowest level in nearly 23 years and down from 2.85m b/d in August. Over the past year Iranian oil output has fallen by more than 1m b/d, hitting the country’s economic stability. Crude oil is Iran’s economic lifeline and the drop in production, exports and revenues has precipitated the collapse of the Iranian rial against the US dollar.” [Financial Times, 10/12/12]The Iranian Rial Has Lost 80% Of Its Value Since The End Of 2011 Under The Pressure Of US And International Sanctions. “The [Iranian] currency has reportedly lost 80% of its value since the end of 2011. The fall suggests economic sanctions imposed over its disputed nuclear programme are hitting economic activity ever harder…Iran is all but frozen out of the global banking system as a result of largely US-led sanctions designed to discourage what it says is Iran's attempts to build a nuclear weapon.” [BBC, 10/1/12]President Obama Worked With Our NATO Allies To Protect Civilians, Halt An Advancing Army, And Stop A Massacre In LibyaWHEN QADDAFI MOVED TO ATTACK HIS OWN PEOPLE, PRESIDENT OBAMA WORKED WITH OUR NATO ALLIES TO PROTECT CIVILIANS, HALT AN ADVANCING ARMY, AND STOP A MASSACRE IN LIBYAPresident Obama Secured An International Mandate To Protect Libyan Civilians From The Qaddafi Regime, Leading To The March International Military Operation. ?“In the face of this aggression, the international community took action.? The United States helped shape a U.N. Security Council resolution that mandated the protection of Libyan civilians.? An unprecedented coalition was formed that included the United States, our NATO partners and Arab nations.? And in March, the international community launched a military operation to save lives and stop Qaddafi’s forces in their tracks.” [Statement by the President on Libya, 8/22/11]Vice Admiral Gortney: The United States Took The Early Lead In Operations To Shape The Battle Space So A NATO Could Step Forward And Take The Lead. “The U.S. military has and will continue to use our unique capabilities to create the conditions from which we and our partners can best enforce the full measure of the U.N. mandate.? Our mission right now is to shape the battle space in such a way that our partners may take the lead in both – in execution.” [Department of Defense Briefing with Vice Admiral Bill Gortney, 3/19/11]New York Times: “Even Critics Conceded A Success” For President Obama’s Approach To Libya. “Mr. Obama’s carefully calibrated response infuriated critics on the right and left, who blamed him either for ceding American leadership in a foreign conflict or for blundering into another Arab land without an exit strategy. But with Colonel Qaddafi joining the lengthening list of tyrants and terrorists dispatched during the Obama presidency, even critics conceded a success for Mr. Obama’s approach to war?— one that relies on collective, rather than unilateral, action; on surgical strikes rather than massive troop deployments. ” [New York Times, 10/20/11]ATTACKTopline: Romney’s No Foreign Policy ExpertROMNEY AND RYAN LACK FOREIGN POLICY AND MILITARY EXPERIENCENew York Times: “The Selection Of Mr. Ryan Means That This Campaign Is The First In 80 Years In Which No Candidate Of Either Major Political Party Has Served In The Military.” [New York Times, 8/11/12]New York Times: Neither Romney Or Ryan “Has Military Experience Or Much Background In Foreign Policy.” “When Mr. Ryan bounded onto the stage to join Mr. Romney, against a backdrop of the retired battleship Wisconsin, he carried a generational message; at 42, he is 23 years younger than Mr. Romney and is the same age as Mr. Romney’s oldest son. Neither man has military experience or much background in foreign policy.” [New York Times, 8/12/12]TIME’s Michael Crowley: Romney “Brings An Unusually Skimpy Foreign Policy Background For A GOP Nominee. The Last GOP Candidate With So Little Experience In Foreign Affairs Was Ronald Reagan In 1980.” [Michael Crowley, Swampland blog, TIME, 7/25/12]ROMNEY’S FOREIGN POLICY IS DRIVEN BY ATTACKING THE PRESIDENT RATHER THAN A LONG TERM STRATEGIC VISIONFormer Romney Foreign-Policy Adviser Dimitri Simes: “I Worry That Too Much Of Romney's Criticism [Of President Obama’s Foreign Policy] Is Driven By What He Thinks Is Best Politically, And Not By Any Larger Strategic Vision.” [Wall Street Journal, 3/29/12]Aaron David Miller, Middle East Policy Adviser To Five Secretaries Of State Going Back To The Reagan Administration: “Romney Keeps Staking Out Positions That Are Meant To Be Sharply At Odds With Obama, But Also Happen To Be At Odds With What He Would Have To Do If He Were President.” [Wall Street Journal, 3/29/12]Wall Street Journal: Romney “Made Clear That His Policies Would Stand In Contrast To Mr. Obama’s, But He Didn’t Detail Precisely How He Would Achieve The [Foreign Policy] Objectives He Outlined.” [Wall Street Journal, 7/24/12]New York Times: “In Seeking To Define Himself In Opposition To President Obama, Mr. Romney Has Openly Rejected Positions That George W. Bush Came Around To In His Humbler Second Term.” [New York Times, 5/12/12]Council On Foreign Relations James Lindsay: The Republican National Convention “Made Two Things Clear: Foreign Policy Will Be At Best A Secondary Theme In The GOP Push To Unseat President Barack Obama, And When The Romney Campaign Does Turn To Foreign Policy, It Will Be Heavy On Criticism And Light On Specifics About Its Preferred Policies.” [James Lindsay Op-Ed, CNN, 9/3/12]Reuters: On Foreign Policy, “We’re Not Sure If Romney Is Confused Or Afraid; But We Do Know That He Is Wrong.” [Reuters, 6/4/12]Reuters: “Romney Is Intent On Finding New Enemies In Places Where They Barely Exist.” [Reuters, 6/4/12]New York Times Editorial: “Even Some Of [Romney’s] Advisers, When Interviewed, Have Been Unable To Explain Exactly What He Would Do Differently On Many Issues, And, Where He Does Draw A Line, His Positions Are Mostly Troubling Or Unconvincing.” [Editorial, New York Times, 7/24/12]Slate’s Fred Kaplan: “Mitt Romney’s Statements On Foreign Policy Range From Vague To Ill-Informed To Downright Dangerous.” [Fred Kaplan, Slate, 06/29/12] Washington Post’s The Plum Line: “Romney Has Adopted A Bellicose And Dangerous Approach To Foreign Affairs.” [The Plum Line Blog, Washington Post, 7/6/12]ROMNEY HAS REPEATEDLY ATTACKED OUR ALLIESBuzzfeed Headline: “Romney Has Criticized Every Other Member Of The G-8” [Buzzfeed, 8/9/12]Romney “Has Made Disparaging Remarks” About Our Allies, So “Either Romney Doesn’t Know Who U.S. Allies Are — Or He Broke His Own Foreign Policy Code” Which He Claimed Was To Disagree With Allies In Private. “Another of Romney’s greatest flip-flops: He said, ‘if you disagree with an ally, you talk about it privately, but in public you stand shoulder to shoulder.’ Yet he can’t heed his own advice. He has made disparaging remarks about the former Mexican President Vicente Fox, France and a blanket statement condemning all Europe to second-tier status. Either Romney doesn’t know who U.S. allies are — or he broke his own foreign policy code.” [Politico, 10/6/11]British Prime Minister David Cameron: “Mitt Romney Has That Unique Distinction Of Uniting All Of England Against Him With His Various Remarks.” [Huffington Post, 9/17/12]Romney’s Rhetoric Against China And The U.S.’s European Allies “Raises Questions About Whether The Rhetoric Could Damage U.S. Relations Abroad” Should He Be Elected President. “It often appears that Romney is targeting the rest of the world as fiercely as he does his rivals for the party nomination and President Barack Obama. It's not just expected foils like Iran that are in his line of attack. He takes aim at European allies, who are seen as slipping the capitalist leash. The tough talk drives home Romney's criticism that Obama is an apologist for America, soft on its enemies and too forgiving of its friends. It's a message that might resonate with Republican voters, who sometimes tend to be wary of the rest of the world. It also raises questions about whether the rhetoric could damage U.S. relations abroad in the event that the former venture capitalist and Massachusetts governor wins the White House.” [Associated Press, 2/17/12]ROMNEY’ FOREIGN POLICY TRIP WAS A DISASTER HEARD AROUND THE WORLDU.S. News & World Report Headline: “Mitt Romney's Foreign Trip Made More Enemies Than Friends” [Leslie Marshall, U.S. News & World Report, 8/2/12]National Journal: “Romney Appeared So Amateurish During His Recent Gaffe-Strewn Tour Through Britain, Israel, And Poland.”? [National Journal, 8/27/12]ABC News Headline: “Romney's Overseas Trip Continues With Another Fumble.” [ABC News, 7/30/12]CNN Headline: “Romney Trip Begins In Shambles.” [CNN, 7/27/12]Wall Street Journal Headline: “Romney Stumbles As He Kicks Off Overseas Trip.” [Wall Street Journal, 7/26/12]Washington Post Headline: “What Had The Worst Week In Washington? Mitt Romney.” [Chris Cilizza, Washington Post, 7/27/12]Los Angeles Times Headline: “Romney’s London Olympic Remarks Distract From Visit.” [Los Angeles Times, 7/27/12]Guardian:“Romneyshambles’, ‘Party-Pooper’, ‘Worse Than Palin’ – British Papers Are Unimpressed By Republican’s Charm Offensive.” [Guardian, 7/27/12]Tampa Bay Times Editorial: “Mitt Romney Bounced From Careless To Reckless Over The Weekend During An Overseas Trip Meant To Showcase His Foreign Policy Credentials.” [Editorial, Tampa Bay Times, 7/31/12]Tampa Bay Times Editorial: “Instead Of Burnishing His Credentials, Romney Raised More Questions About His Preparedness To Be President.” [Editorial, Tampa Bay Times, 7/31/12]Republican Strategist: “The Whole Experience In England Was A Disaster. I Think It Amplified His Naivete.” [Washington Post, 7/31/12]Defense Spending: Romney Would Add $2 Trillion In Defense SpendingROMNEY WANTS $2 TRILLION IN NEW MILITARY SPENDING THAT THE MILITARY HASN’T ASKED FOR AND HE HASN’T PAID FOR Headline: “Defense Spending To Spike $2.1 Trillion Under Romney” [CNN, 5/10/12]Business Insider: “Romney Wants To Spend $2 Trillion On The Military It Hasn't Even Asked For” [Business Insider, 10/9/12]PolitiFact: “The President Said Romney Planned To Increase Defense Spending By $2 Trillion And That Was Money The Military Hadn’t Asked For… We Rate The Statement True.” “The president said Romney planned to increase defense spending by $2 trillion and that was money the military hadn’t asked for. Independent analysts confirm that number, and Romney did not deny it. Military leaders have testified in support of the president’s spending plan, and we found no evidence of disagreement behind the scenes. We rate the statement True.” [Politifact, 10/5/12]ROMNEY HASN’T SAID HOW HE WOULD PAY FOR HIS $2 TRILLION DEFENSE INCREASEThink Progress:“Even His Own Top Foreign Policy Aides Can’t Explain How The Republican Nominee Would Pay For Such A Massive, And Completely Unnecessary, Increase In Military Spending.” [Think Progress, 10/4/12]Romney Hasn’t Said How He Would Pay For His $2 Trillion Increase In Defense Spending. “Romney, by contrast, has called for increasing active-duty military personnel by 100,000 troops and boosting the nation's fleet. He has also said he would increase defense spending -- by ensuring that the budget would not fall below 4% of the nation's gross domestic product. He has not said, however, how he would pay for that increase, which some analysts project would add more than $2 trillion in government spending over the next decade.” [Los Angeles Times, 5/31/12]Wall Street Journal: “[Romney’s] Defense Spending Plans, Which Could Add Another $2 Trillion To The Budget Over The Next Decade, Further Complicate His Math.” [Wall Street Journal, 8/13/12]ROMNEY HAS BEEN CRITICIZED FOR HIS UNREALISTIC DEFENSE SPENDING PLANS WITH ARBITRARY GOALSRomney Defense Plan: “Reverse Obama-Era Defense Spending Cuts With The Goal Of Setting A Core Defense Spending Floor Of 4% Of GDP.” [Defense Fact Sheet, Romney For President, 7/24/12]Romney: Raising Defense Spending To 4% Of GDP Is “Essential To Keep America Safe.” Romney: “I’m, I think I’m the only guy suggesting that we should raise our Defense budget to 4% of our total GDP, which is about one-fifth of federal spending. For me, that’s essential to keep America safe.” [Hugh Hewitt Show, 11/18/11]Ryan Said That Linking Spending On New Weapons To The Gross Domestic Product Was “Bad Budgeting.”?“Meantime, other senior Pentagon officials told the panel they may ask Congress to link spending on new weapons to the gross domestic product (GDP). That is a shift from recent statements by defense brass about locking in annual Pentagon budget levels at 4 percent of GDP.?Adm. Michael Mullen, Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman, has championed making the annual defense top-line figure about 4 percent of GDP. Supplementals ‘have taken on, in many ways, a life of their own,’ he said Jan. 26. ‘My view is supplementals need to be dramatically reduced and put in the baseline budget as rapidly as we can.’?Mullen's idea is to smoothly roll war funding into annual defense budgets because doing so overnight would cause too much budgetary heartburn.?But the idea might encounter some resistance from budget hawks on both sides of the aisle on Capitol Hill.?Senior committee members at the Feb. 27 session were skeptical of binding any portion of the federal budget to GDP. Ryan said the idea strikes him as ‘bad budgeting.’?The committee's ranking Republican also said he worries that making such a switch would mean ‘we'd be treating the defense budget differently than any part of the federal budget.’”?[Defense News, 3/3/08]Brookings Institution’s Peter Singer: Romney’s Budget Proposal Which Included Additional Defense Spending Did Not “Reflect Fiscal Sanity.” “Romney's plan to spend more at the Pentagon adds yet another layer of complexity to a set of proposals that would remake the fiscal landscape. Romney has proposed a slew of tax cuts, and plans to cap federal spending at 20% of GDP. But in both cases, the Romney campaign hasn't fully explained how those provisions will be paid for. The lack of detail means that Romney's claim of moving toward a balanced budget requires a great deal of trust.? … Other budget experts expressed similar concerns about Romney's proposal, including Peter Singer, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, who said the plan for additional spending does not ‘reflect fiscal reality.’” [CNN, 5/10/12]Defense News: “Romney Advisers Acknowledge That Today’s Fiscal Reality Could Make It Difficult To Realize The 4 Percent Goal.” [Defense News, 6/17/12]Defense Budget Analyst, Todd Harrison: Setting Defense Spending At 4% Of GDP Is Arbitrary – Defense Spending Should Be Based On Need And Not The Size Of The Economy. “For [senior fellow for defense budget studies at the nonpartisan Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, Todd] Harrison, setting defense spending at 4 percent of GDP isn’t helpful because it’s an arbitrary standard, he said… Over the past 20 years, the base defense budget has averaged 3.3 percent of GDP, according to Harrison said. ‘What you spend on defense really should be a function of your security needs, and what you think the threat environment is and what you think you need to protect the country,’ he said. ‘It shouldn’t be a formula based on the size of your economy.’” [Defense News, 6/17/12]Defense Budget Analyst, Todd Harrison On Romney’s Plan To Increase Defense Spending: “What Is The Threat That Requires More Spending? That Is What They Need To Articulate.” [Defense News, 6/17/12]Defense Spending: SequestrationROMNEY SAID HE DIDN’T WANT CONGRESS TO TAKE ACTION BEFORE INAUGURATION DAY 2013 AS CONGRESSIONAL REPUBLICANS STALLED ON A DEFICIT SOLUTIONWall Street Journal:“Romney Said In A Recent Interview With Time Magazine That He Hopes The Lame-Duck Congress Doesn't Enact Long-Term Legislation On The Looming Fiscal Issues.”? “Mr. Romney said in a recent interview with Time magazine that he hopes the lame-duck Congress doesn't enact long-term legislation on the looming fiscal issues if he is elected, but instead gives him time to make his own proposals.” [Wall Street Journal, 6/13/12]Congressional Republicans Have “Doubled Down” On Their “Insistence That A Deficit Solution Include Only Cuts To Non-Defense Social Spending” And No Tax Increases.?“The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) on Wednesday warned the economy will enter a recession next year if the country goes over the so-called fiscal cliff… Democrats last month threatened to let the nation go over the fiscal cliff unless Republicans agree to a ‘balanced’ deficit package that includes some tax increases. The GOP has so far doubled down on its insistence that a deficit solution include only cuts to non-defense social spending.” [The Hill,?8/22/12]RYAN VOTED FOR THE BUDGET CONTROL ACT AND PROPOSED AUTOMATIC DEFENSE CUTS IN HIS 2010 ROADMAPRyan Voted In Favor Of The Budget Control Act, Which Provided A Process To Reduce The Deficit By Up to $2.4 Trillion While Increasing The Debt Limit By The Same Amount And Created A Bipartisan, Bicameral Committee Tasked With Recommending $1.5 Trillion In Deficit Reductions. Ryan voted in favor of the Budget Control Act, which would provide a process to reduce the deficit by up to $2.4 trillion. The measure would allow the President to raise the debt limit immediately by $400 billion, with an additional $500 billion subject to a resolution of disapproval. It would set discretionary spending caps that would reduce the deficit by $917 billion in fiscal 2012 through 2021 and establish a firewall between security and non-security spending for fiscal 2012 and 2013. It would establish a bipartisan, bicameral committee tasked with making recommendations to reduce the deficit by $1.5 trillion. It would require across-the-board cuts to non-exempt discretionary and mandatory accounts by up to $1.2 trillion over fiscal 2013 through 2021 if committee reductions totaling $1.2 trillion were not enacted. The measure would require Congress to vote on a balanced-budget constitutional amendment by the end of 2011. It also would provide for an additional debt limit increase of $1.2 trillion to $1.5 trillion, subject to a resolution of disapproval. The bill passed 269-161. [S. 365, Vote #690, CQ Floor Votes 8/1/11]Ryan Called The Budget Control Act “A Victory.” “Ryan voted for the Budget Control Act when it passed, calling it ‘a victory for those committed to controlling government spending and growing our economy.’” [CBS News, 8/23/12]Washington Post Headline: “Ryan Proposed Automatic Defense Cuts In Earlier Budget Plan” [Washington Post, 9/17/12]Washington Post: “Ryan Himself Proposed To Cap Government Spending And Enforce Those Caps With Automatic Spending Cuts That Would Have Hit The Pentagon.” [Washington Post, 9/17/12]Ryan’s 2010 Roadmap Included A Provision For Automatic Defense Spending Cuts. “As introduced in 2010, Ryan’s ‘Roadmap for America’s Future’ would have created ‘a mechanism to automatically slow the growth in faster-spending entitlement programs’ by requiring the White House budget office ‘to make across-the-board spending reductions in both mandatory and discretionary program’ if overall federal spending breached specified limits. The Defense Department would have been a target for cuts, House Budget Committee aides confirmed Monday, though the impact would have been limited to 1 percent of any agency’s budget.” [Washington Post, 9/17/12]Diplomatic Spending: The Romney-Ryan Budget Could Cut Diplomatic SecurityTHE ROMNEY-RYAN BUDGET COULD SLASH DIPLOMATIC SECURITY FUNDING BY $303 MILLION IN FY 2013Ryan: “We’re Saying We Should Have An Across The Board Spending Cut On What We Call Domestic Discretionary Spending Immediately To Help Reduce The Deficit.” [Ryan Interview, WTOL (Toledo, OH), 10/8/12]“Under Ryan’s Budget, Non-Defense Discretionary Spending, Which Includes State Department Funding, Would Be Slashed Nearly 20 Percent In 2014.” [Milbank, Washington Post, 10/9/12]The Ryan Budget Doesn’t Exempt Embassy Security From Cuts. “But the Ryan budget doesn't exempt embassy security from cuts, either.” [Hill, 10/7/12]Embassy Security, Construction, And Maintenance Baseline Funding Is $1.5 Billion For FY 2013 And Protection of Foreign Missions and Officials Baseline Funding Is $27 Million For FY 2013. [OMB Report Pursuant to the Sequestration Transparency Act of 2012 (P. L. 112–155), p. 148, 9/14/12]RYAN AND HOUSE REPUBLICANS HAVE PUSHED FOR DEEP CUTS EFFECTING DIPLOMATIC SECURITY FOR YEARSWashington Posts Dana Milbank: “Diplomatic Security Is Inadequate Partly Because Of Budget Cuts Forced By… Republicans In Congress.” “The purpose of the pre-election hearing, presumably, is to embarrass the administration for inadequate diplomatic security. But [Rep. Darrell] Issa seems unaware of the irony that diplomatic security is inadequate partly because of budget cuts forced by his fellow Republicans in Congress.” [Milbank, Washington Post, 10/9/12]?The GOP-Controlled House Proposed Spending $216 Million Less For The State Department’s Worldwide Security Protection Program Requested By The Obama Administration For Fiscal 2013. “For fiscal 2013, the GOP-controlled House proposed spending $1.934 billion for the State Department’s Worldwide Security Protection program — well below the $2.15?billion requested by the Obama administration.” [Milbank, Washington Post, 10/9/12] House Republicans Cut The Obama Administration’s Request For Embassy Security By Nearly $460 Million In Fiscal Years 2011 And 2012. “House Republicans cut the administration’s request for embassy security funding by $128 million in fiscal 2011 and $331 million in fiscal 2012. (Negotiations with the Democrat-controlled Senate restored about $88 million of the administration’s request.)” [Milbank, Washington Post, 10/9/12]Washington Posts Dana Milbank: “[Rep. Paul] Ryan, [Rep. Darrell] Issa And Other House Republicans Voted For An Amendment In 2009 To Cut $1.2 Billion From State Operations, Including Funds For 300 More Diplomatic Security Positions.” [Milbank, Washington Post, 10/9/12]?Washington Posts Dana Milbank: “Last Year, Secretary Of State Hillary Clinton Warned That Republicans’ Proposed Cuts To Her Department Would Be ‘Detrimental To America’s National Security’ — A Charge [House] Republicans Rejected.” [Milbank, Washington Post, 10/9/12]Diplomatic Spending: The Romney-Ryan Budget Could Cut Diplomatic Security By Twice As Much As SequestrationTHE ROMNEY-RYAN BUDGET COULD CUT DIPLOMATIC SECURITY FUNDING BY MORE THAN TWICE AS MUCH AS THE SEQUESTRATION RYAN VOTED FORTHE ROMNEY-RYAN BUDGET COULD SLASH DIPLOMATIC SECURITY FUNDING BY $303 MILLIONIN FY 2013 – WHICH IS $172 MILLION MORE THAN SEQUESTRATION Ryan: “We’re Saying We Should Have An Across The Board Spending Cut On What We Call Domestic Discretionary Spending Immediately To Help Reduce The Deficit.” [Ryan Interview, WTOL (Toledo, OH), 10/8/12]“Under Ryan’s Budget, Non-Defense Discretionary Spending, Which Includes State Department Funding, Would Be Slashed Nearly 20 Percent In 2014.” [Milbank, Washington Post, 10/9/12]The Ryan Budget Doesn’t Exempt Embassy Security From Cuts. “But the Ryan budget doesn't exempt embassy security from cuts, either.” [Hill, 10/7/12]Embassy Security, Construction, And Maintenance Baseline Funding Is $1.5 Billion For FY 2013 And Protection of Foreign Missions and Officials Baseline Funding Is $27 Million For FY 2013. [OMB Report Pursuant to the Sequestration Transparency Act of 2012 (P. L. 112–155), p. 148, 9/14/12]Sequestration Would Cut Embassy Security, Construction, And Maintenance Funding By 8.2 Percent, For A Total Of $129 Million In FY 2013 And Protection of Foreign Missions and Officials Funding By 8.2 Percent, For A Total Of $2 Million In FY 2013. [OMB Report Pursuant to the Sequestration Transparency Act of 2012 (P. L. 112–155), p. 148, 9/14/12]RYAN AND HOUSE REPUBLICANS HAVE PUSHED FOR DEEP CUTS EFFECTING DIPLOMATIC SECURITY FOR YEARSWashington Posts Dana Milbank: “Diplomatic Security Is Inadequate Partly Because Of Budget Cuts Forced By… Republicans In Congress.” “The purpose of the pre-election hearing, presumably, is to embarrass the administration for inadequate diplomatic security. But [Rep. Darrell] Issa seems unaware of the irony that diplomatic security is inadequate partly because of budget cuts forced by his fellow Republicans in Congress.” [Milbank, Washington Post, 10/9/12]?The GOP-Controlled House Proposed Spending $216 Million Less For The State Department’s Worldwide Security Protection Program Requested By The Obama Administration For Fiscal 2013. “For fiscal 2013, the GOP-controlled House proposed spending $1.934 billion for the State Department’s Worldwide Security Protection program — well below the $2.15?billion requested by the Obama administration.” [Milbank, Washington Post, 10/9/12]House Republicans Cut The Obama Administration’s Request For Embassy Security By Nearly $460 Million In Fiscal Years 2011 And 2012. “House Republicans cut the administration’s request for embassy security funding by $128 million in fiscal 2011 and $331 million in fiscal 2012. (Negotiations with the Democrat-controlled Senate restored about $88 million of the administration’s request.)” [Milbank, Washington Post, 10/9/12]Washington Posts Dana Milbank: “[Rep. Paul] Ryan, [Rep. Darrell] Issa And Other House Republicans Voted For An Amendment In 2009 To Cut $1.2 Billion From State Operations, Including Funds For 300 More Diplomatic Security Positions.” [Milbank, Washington Post, 10/9/12]?Washington Posts Dana Milbank: “Last Year, Secretary Of State Hillary Clinton Warned That Republicans’ Proposed Cuts To Her Department Would Be ‘Detrimental To America’s National Security’ — A Charge [House] Republicans Rejected.” [Milbank, Washington Post, 10/9/12]Afghanistan: Romney Lacks Plans On AfghanistanROMNEY LACKS PLANS ON AFGHANISTANFox News: “The [Romney] Campaign Does Not Go Into Great Detail About Its Plan For U.S. Military In Afghanistan If Romney Is Elected.” “The campaign, though, does not go into great detail about its plan for U.S. military in Afghanistan if Romney is elected. The statement says Romney would ‘review our transition to the Afghan military by holding discussions’ with military leaders and would ‘order a full interagency assessment of our military and assistance presence in Afghanistan’ to determine how many troops are needed.” [Fox News, 9/3/12]Romney Said Announcing Plans To Withdrawal From Afghanistan Was The President’s “Biggest Mistake.” Romney: “I think the biggest mistakes he’s made in Afghanistan were one, announcing the specific date we would withdraw.” [WXYT (Detroit, MI), 2/28/12]Talking Points Memo: “The Romney Campaign Has Been Mostly Uninterested In Discussing Specifics On Afghanistan.” [Talking Points Memo, 7/24/12]Real Clear Politics: “Romney’s Opponents In The GOP Primary Regularly Complained To Reporters That The Front-Runner Had No Discernible Policy To Deal With Afghanistan.”? [Real Clear Politics, 4/17/12]Associated Press: “Romney Has Criticized Obama’s Withdrawal Plan In Afghanistan, But Offered Few Details About How He Would Change It.” [Associated Press, 8/15/12]ROMNEY’S SUPPORTERS CAN’T EXPLAIN ROMNEY’S PLANS FOR AFGHANISTANWhen Asked If He Supports Romney’s Plans For Afghanistan, Sen. Lindsey Graham Asked “What Is It?” “But even Republican lawmakers have called on Romney to be more open about his plans for Afghanistan. When asked by Foreign Policy whether he supported Romney's plans for Afghanistan South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham, a member of the Armed Services Committee, responded ‘What is it?’” [BuzzFeed, 7/24/12]Huffington Post: “A Senior Adviser To Mitt Romney Declined To Provide More Specific Details On The Presumptive GOP Nominee’s Plan For Afghanistan On Thursday, Saying It Was A Distraction From What ‘Real Americans Want To Talk About.’” [Huffington Post, 7/19/12]Huffington Post: “Top Senators Are Equally Flummoxed. None Of Them Who Talked To [Josh] Rogin Were Able To Explain What Romney’s [Afghanistan] Policy Was.” [Huffington Post, 7/19/12]ROMNEY FAILED TO ADDRESS AFGHANISTAN IN MAJOR ADDRESSES AND ON THE TRAILNew York Times Headline: “Campaign References to Afghanistan Are Missing In Action.” [International Herald Tribune, New York Times, 9/2/12]Associated Press: “Romney Was The First Republican Since 1952 To Accept His Party’s Nomination Without Mentioning War.” [Associated Press, 9/2/12]TIME: “Yet It Is Amazing That After More Than A Decade Of War, And 6,593 American Dead (2,107 In Afghanistan And Operation Enduring Freedom; 4,487 In Iraq), The Political Party That Spearheaded Both Wars Is So Silent On Them Now.” [Time, 8/30/12]Romney Mentioned “Afghanistan” Once In His Speech To The American Legion Saying: “And We Are Still At War In Afghanistan.” [Romney Speech, American Legion, 8/29/12]BuzzFeed: “Mitt Romney’s Top Foreign Policy Advisers Held A Call Today To Preview The Republican Candidate’s Major Policy Address To The Veterans Of Foreign Wars Conference, But Seemingly Forgot To Mention The Ongoing Conflict In Afghanistan.” [BuzzFeed, 7/24/12]Romney’s Foreign Policy Speech “Did Not Offer Any Specifics On Afghanistan.”? The New York Time’s Ashley Parker wrote of Romney’s foreign policy speech: “Though Mr. Romney did not offer any specifics on Afghanistan, he said he would ‘order a full review of our transition to the Afghan military,’ listen to the generals in the field and make his decision ‘free from politics.’” [New York Times, 10/7/11]Afghanistan: Romney Would Leave Our Troops In AfghanistanROMNEY AVOIDS COMMITTING TO A POLICY IN AFGHANISTAN BY SUGGESTING HE WOULD DEFER TO GUIDANCE FROM THE COMMANDERS ON THE GROUNDFox: “Speaking On Afghanistan, Romney Left The Door Open To Keeping American Troops There Beyond 2014, When The Transition To Afghan Security Forces Should Be Complete.” [Fox, KDVR, 10/8/12]Romney: “Withdrawal Of U.S. Forces From Afghanistan Under A Romney Administration Will Be Based On Conditions On The Ground As Assessed By Our Military Commanders.” [Issues: Afghanistan & Pakistan, Romney For President, accessed 9/10/12]Romney On Withdrawal From Afghanistan: “I Will Evaluate Conditions On The Ground And Weigh The Best Advice Of Our Military Commanders.” “But the route to war – and to potential attacks here at home – is a politically timed retreat that abandons the Afghan people to the same extremists who ravaged their country and used it to launch the attacks of 9/11.? I will evaluate conditions on the ground and weigh the best advice of our military commanders. And I will affirm that my duty is not to my political prospects, but to the security of the nation.” [Romney Foreign Policy Address, Lexington VA, 10/8/12]Romney Criticism Of The Drawdown Of The Iraq And Afghanistan Wars “Hasn’t Extended Far Beyond Saying He Would Have Differed By Heeding The Wishes Of Commanders On The Ground.” “He’s offered boilerplate opposition to the president’s handling of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the popular uprisings in Libya and Syria. … Romney’s criticism of the drawdown of the wars hasn’t extended far beyond saying he would have differed by heeding the wishes of commanders on the ground. And even a number of Republicans acknowledge significant popular fatigue for the two wars, even within the GOP.” [First Read, NBC, 3/29/12]Romney Would Leave Generals In Afghanistan To Guide The Pullout Schedule Rather Than The President. “Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and Texas Congressman Ron Paul are disagreeing on how quickly to withdraw U.S. troops from Afghanistan. Romney said at a Republican presidential debate Monday that generals in Afghanistan should guide the pullout schedule based to conditions on the ground. He said the troops should come home as soon as possible under those conditions. Paul said the president must tell generals what to do.” [Washington Post, 6/13/11]ROMNEY’S SET GOALS FOR AFGHANISTAN WOULD LEAVE TROOPS IN AFGHANISTAN INDEFINITELYWall Street Journal: “Over The Course Of A Campaign [In 2012] That Has Mainly Skirted Foreign-Policy Issues, Mr. Romney Has Backed Remaining In Afghanistan Until The U.S. Can Claim Victory There.” [Wall Street Journal, 3/29/12]Romney Adviser: Romney’s Declaration That “We Should Defeat The Taliban” “Begged The Obvious Question … Do We Stay Another Decade [In Afghanistan]?” “During the Republican primary debates in January, when Mitt Romney was still trying to outmaneuver the challengers who were questioning his conservative bona fides, he made a declaration about Afghanistan that led a faction of his foreign policy advisers to shake their heads in wonderment. ‘We should not negotiate with the Taliban,’ the former Massachusetts governor declared, just as diplomats dispatched by the president were in Qatar trying to get those negotiations going. ‘We should defeat the Taliban.’ In case anyone missed his meaning, he drove home the point, saying the best strategy was, ‘We go anywhere they are and we kill them.’ … ‘It begged the obvious question,’ the adviser added. ‘Do we stay another decade? How many forces, and how long, does that take? Do we really want to go into the general election telling Americans that we should stay a few more years to eradicate the whole Taliban movement?’” [New York Times, 5/12/12]Romney: It Is “Not A Sure Thing” That Afghan Security Forces Can Maintain The Sovereignty Of Afghanistan. Romney response to conservative radio host saying U.S. needs to leave Afghanistan: “At the same time, we want to give the Afghan security forces the best chance they have of maintaining the sovereignty of their nation. I agree with you, that is not a sure thing. Ultimately, as I’ve said time and again, the people of Afghanistan are going to have to own and win their own independence from the Taliban and from forces of evil in their country. We cannot win that for them.” [Bill Cunningham Show, WLW, 3/5/12]Afghanistan: Romney Attacked President Obama On Withdrawing Troops From AfghanistanROMNEY PREVIOUSLY ATTACKED PRESIDENT OBAMA’S PLAN TO WITHDRAW TROOPS FROM AFGHANISTAN SAYING HIS ANNOUNCEMENT WAS HIS “BIGGEST MISTAKE” AND “WRONG”Romney Said Announcing Plans To Withdrawal From Afghanistan Was The President’s “Biggest Mistake.” Romney: “I think the biggest mistakes he’s made in Afghanistan were one, announcing the specific date we would withdraw.” [WXYT (Detroit, MI), 2/28/12]Romney: “This President Has Done An Extraordinary Thing. He Announced The Date Of Our Withdrawal… That Was Wrong.”? [South Carolina Republican Primary Debate, 1/16/12]Romney Attacked President Obama’s Remarks On Withdrawal In Afghanistan Saying “We Shouldn’t Adhere To An Arbitrary TimetableOn The Withdrawal Of Our Troops From Afghanistan.” Mitt Romney issued the following response to President Barack Obama’s remarks on Afghanistan tonight: “We all want our troops to come home as soon as possible, but we shouldn’t adhere to an arbitrary timetable on the withdrawal of our troops from Afghanistan. This decision should not be based on politics or economics. America’s brave men and women in uniform have fought to achieve significant progress in Afghanistan, some having paid the ultimate price. I look forward to hearing the testimony of our military commanders in the days ahead.” [Press Release, Romney For President, 6/22/11]Romney Criticized President Obama’s Announcement Of A Troop Withdrawal Timeline In Afghanistan Saying “The Taliban May Not Have Watches, But They Do Have Calendars.” “Romney praised the decision to send additional troops to Afghanistan, but criticized President Obama’s announcement of when troops will withdraw. ‘The Taliban may not have watches, but they do have calendars,’ Romney said.” [Boston Globe, 6/3/11]Bin Laden: Not Worth Moving Heaven And EarthROMNEY CLAIMED IT WAS “NOT WORTH MOVING HEAVEN AND EARTH” TO CAPTURE OSAMA BIN LADENRomney Said Of Going After Osama Bin Laden: “It’s Not Worth Moving Heaven And Earth, Spending Billions Of Dollars Just To Capture One Person.”? “In the interview, Romney also said the country would be safer by only ‘a small percentage’ and would see ‘a very insignificant increase in safety’ if al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden was caught because another terrorist would rise to power. ‘It's not worth moving heaven and earth spending billions of dollars just trying to catch one person,’ Romney said. Instead, he said he supports a broader strategy to defeat the Islamic jihad movement.” [Associated Press, 4/27/07]ROMNEY ATTACKED PRESIDENT OBAMA AND DISAGREED WITH GOING INTO PAKISTAN UNILATERALLY?TO TAKE OUT HIGH VALUED TERRORISTS Romney Said He Didn’t Agree With Obama on Taking Unilateral Action Against Al Qaeda Targets in Pakistan Saying “I Do Not Concur In The Words Of Barack Obama In A Plan To Enter An Ally Of Ours.”? “Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney criticized Democrat Barack Obama on Friday for vowing to strike al Qaeda targets inside Pakistan if necessary as the Obama camp issued a strident defense of his plan… ‘I do not concur in the words of Barack Obama in a plan to enter an ally of ours... I don't think those kinds of comments help in this effort to draw more friends to our effort,’ Romney told reporters on the campaign trail. Obama on Wednesday said if elected president in November 2008 he would be willing to launch military strikes against al Qaeda targets inside Pakistan with or without the approval of the Pakistani government of President Pervez Musharraf.” [Reuters, 8/4/07]Romney: “I Do Not Concur In The Words Of Barack Obama In A Plan To Enter An Ally Of Ours And Their Country In A Manner Complete With Bombing And So Forth. I Don’t Think Those Kind Of Comments Help In This Effort To Draw More Friends To Our Effort.” [Romney Interview, Radio Iowa, 8/3/07 (AUDIO)]Romney Called President Obama’s Promise To Take Out High Valued Terrorist Targets In Pakistan “Ill-Timed And Ill-Considered.” Mike Glover of the Associated Press asked Romney about Obama’s promise to unilaterally take out high valued terrorist targets in Pakistan: “You disagree with his suggestion of sending troops in.” Romney: “I think his comments were ill-timed and ill-considered.” [Romney Interview, Radio Iowa, 8/3/07 (AUDIO)]Romney Opposed Unilateral Action In Pakistan To Take Out High Valued Terrorist Targets Adding “We Want, As A Civilized World, To Participate With Other Nations In This Civilized Effort To Help Those Nations Reject The Extreme Within Them. That Doesn’t Mean Our Troops Are Going To Go All Over The World.” Romney said of Obama’s promise to unilaterally take out high valued terrorist targets in Pakistan:“I do not concur in the words of Barack Obama in a plan to enter an ally of ours and their country in a manner complete with bombing and so forth. I don’t think those kind of comments help in this effort to draw more friends to our effort. But certainly there is a war being waged by terrorists of different types and nature across the world. We want, as a civilized world, to participate with other nations in this civilized effort to help those nations reject the extreme within them. That doesn’t mean our troops are going to go all over the world.” [Romney Interview, Radio Iowa, 8/3/07 (AUDIO)]AFTER PRESIDENT OBAMA ORDERED U.S. FORCES TO KILL BIN LADEN, ROMNEY PRAISED THE MOVERomney’s Only Mention Of Osama Bin Laden In His Foreign Policy White Paper: “The Killing Of Osama Bin Laden Was A Landmark In The Struggle For Which President Obama Deserves Credit.”?Romney mentioned Osama bin Laden once in his foreign policy white paper “The killing of Osama bin Laden was a landmark in the struggle for which President Obama deserves credit.” [Romney Foreign Policy White Paper, 10/7/11]Romney Said He Didn’t Care Whether Bin Laden’s Death Would Help Obama’s Re-Election Saying “The Right Thing Is We Got The Bad Guy.” “The former Massachusetts governor said he didn't know or care whether bin Laden's death would help Obama in his re-election campaign. ‘The right thing is we got the bad guy,’ he said. ‘We're all Americans. This is not a Republican or Democrat thing. This is an American thing.’” [Associated Press, 5/3/11]China: Romney Criticized Chinese Tire TariffsROMNEY REPEATEDLY CRITICIZED PRESIDENT OBAMA FOR IMPOSING TARIFFS ON CHINESE TIRES CALLING IT “PROTECTIONISM” AND “BAD FOR THE NATION AND OUR WORKERS”Romney Attacked Obama’s Chinese Tire Tariffs As “Bad For The Nation And Our Workers” And Called It “Protectionism.”?“President Obama’s action to defend American tire companies from foreign competition may make good politics by repaying unions for their support of his campaign, but it is decidedly bad for the nation and our workers. Protectionism stifles productivity.” [Romney, No Apology: Case for American Greatness, Page 119 (audio available), released 3/2/10]Romney’s Campaign Attacked President Obama For Taking “Protectionist Action Against China” Through Chinese Tire Tariffs. Romney For President memo by policy director Lanhee Chen: “What message does it send the Chinese when President Obama takes protectionist action against China on behalf of Big Labor, undermining free trade principles for political gain? The Obama campaign has repeatedly held out its Section 421 action against Chinese tires as an example of President Obama’s supposedly tough China policy.” [Lanhee Chen Memo On China & Trade, Romney For President, 7/10/12]Romney’s Campaign Released A Statement Calling The President’s Tire Tariff “Misguided.”? [Romney For President, Press Release, 9/26/12]China: Romney Invested In ChinaROMNEY’S ADVISERS FALSELY CLAIMED ROMNEY SHED ALL OF HIS INVESTMENTS IN CHINA SOMETIME LAST YEAR…Romney’s Financial Advisers Claim To Have Sold All Of Romney’s Investments In China Sometime After Mid-August 2011, About The Time Romney Made “Confronting China” On Trade Part Of His Economic Platform. “Mitt Romney's financial advisers shed all his investments in China, worth as much as $1.5 million, at some point after mid-August, about the time that Mr. Romney made ‘confronting China’ on trade a central plank of his economic platform as a Republican presidential candidate. The investments were held in blind trusts for Mr. Romney and his wife, Ann, according to his most recent financial-disclosure forms filed with election officials in mid-August. His campaign said that the former Massachusetts governor did not make investment decisions related to the trusts, and that his financial advisers tried to keep his portfolio consistent with his beliefs.” [Wall Street Journal, 12/17/11]Romney Trustee Brad Malt Claimed He “Dumped A Number Of Chinese Holdings” After Romney Pushed For Tougher Trade Sanctions With China. “It’s a job that requires Malt to look out for Romney’s political as well as financial well-being. In 2007, as Romney prepared his first run for president, Malt sold stock in dozens of potentially controversial companies, including casino operators, tobacco growers, and firms with ties to Iran. Last year, after Romney pushed for tougher trade sanctions against China, Malt dumped a number of Chinese holdings.” [Boston Globe, 1/30/12]…BUT ROMNEY CONTINUES TO HOLD INTERESTS IN BAIN CAPITAL FUNDS THAT INVESTED IN A CHINESE SURVEILLANCE COMPANY AND A CHINESE ELECTRONICS COMPANY THAT WAS SUED FOR PIRACYPolitifact: Romney’s Campaign Confirmed That Romney Still “Has Money In Chinese Companies.” “To the extent that some of Romney’s funds can be traced to China, the claim is accurate. In fact, the Romney campaign confirmed it. In an email exchange with us, staff made no bones about it. The candidate has money in Chinese companies.” [PolitiFact, 9/20/12]Romney Holds A Partnership Interest In A Bain Capital Fund Which Purchased Uniview Technologies, Which Supplies The Chinese Government With Video Surveillance Systems. “In December, a Bain-run fund in which a Romney family blind trust has holdings purchased the video surveillance division of a Chinese company that claims to be the largest supplier to the government’s Safe Cities program, a highly advanced monitoring system that allows the authorities to watch over university campuses, hospitals, mosques and movie theaters from centralized command posts.The Bain-owned company, Uniview Technologies, produces what it calls “infrared antiriot” cameras and software that enable police officials in different jurisdictions to share images in real time through the Internet.” [New York Times, 3/15/12]Romney Holds A Partnership Interest In A Bain Capital Fund That Invested In GOME, A Chinese Electronics Company That Is Being Sued By Microsoft For Piracy. “Romney also has between $500,000 and $1 million invested in a Bain Capital fund that has been used to purchase shares of GOME, a Chinese electronics company, according to the financial disclosure form Romney filed in June. That company — in which Bain has been one of the largest outside shareholders — is being sued by Microsoft Corp. for selling computers with pirated versions of its Windows and Office software. Romney frequently criticizes China for intellectual property theft, the type of practices that GOME is alleged to have benefited from. Romney’s campaign said that his investments are held in a blind trust, and are controlled by a trustee, R. Bradford Malt.” [Boston Globe, 9/14/12]China: Romney Would Start A Trade War With ChinaROMNEY WOULD START A TRADE WAR WITH CHINAWall Street Journal Editorial: Romney Claims A Trade War Is A Way To Faster Growth. The Wall Street Journal wrote of Romney’s Jobs Plan: “Starting a trade war is a rare policy mistake that Mr. Obama hasn't made, but Mr. Romney claims it is a way to faster growth.” [Editorial Wall Street Journal, 9/7/11]Club For Growth: “A President Romney Would Be Wise To Avoid Starting A Trade War With China And Punitive Duties Like The Ones Proposed By Romney Are The First Step In That Direction.” [Hill, 9/6/11]National Review Editorial: Romney’s Jobs Plan “Is Mostly Unremarkable – Except For His Promise To Risk A Trade War With China, A Remarkably Bad Idea” And “Wrongheaded.” “Mitt Romney released a jobs plan, which put him a step ahead of the current president, and it is mostly unremarkable — except for his promise to risk a trade war with China, a remarkably bad idea. In truth, it is an idea sufficient wrongheaded that it has been endorsed both by Donald Trump and by Paul Krugman, whose policy prescriptions on China Mr. Romney seems to have adopted tooth to tail.” [Editorial, National Review, 9/7/11]Romney’s Plans “Could Trigger A Trade WarWith A Country That Is The Fastest-Growing Market For U.S. Exports” And “Would Instantly Set Back Relations” With China. “Romney is pledging, on his first day in office, to designate China a currency manipulator, a step no administration has taken against any country for 18 years.That could, eventually, lead to tariffs punishing China for policies that Americans believe unfairly keep Chinese products cheap, hurting U.S. manufacturers. Tariffs could trigger a trade war with a country that is the fastest-growing market for U.S. exports. Even if they don’t, the designation would instantly set back relations with Asia’s emerging superpower.” [Associated Press, 10/11/12]Washington Post’s David Ignatius: [Romney’s] Pledge To Declare China A Foreign-Currency Manipulator On His First Day In Office, For Example, Would Break With Decades Of GOP Policy And Might Launch A Trade War.”[David Ignatius, Washington Post, 8/24/12]TODAY: SENATOR MARCO RUBIO: LABELING CHINA A CURRENCY MANIPULATOR “COULD KICK OFF A TRADE WAR THAT WOULD BE BAD FOR THE ECONOMY” – “I AGREE WITH OBAMA”Senator Marco Rubio Opposed Romney’s Plan To Label China A Currency Manipulator Saying “It Could Kick Off A Trade War That Would Be Bad For The Economy” … “I Agree With Obama On That One.” “I asked [Florida Senator Marco] Rubio if he thought it was a good idea for Mitt Romney to declare China a currency manipulator on day one of his presidency, as the former governor of Massachusetts has repeatedly promised to do. ‘No, not really,’ Rubio said. ‘It could kick off a trade war that would be bad for the economy.’ As he walked away from the table, he added, ‘I agree with Obama on that one.’” [Jonathan Alter, Bloomberg, 10/16/12]ROMNEY’S ATTACKS AGAINST CHINA SHOW A LACK OF REAL POLICY AND CONCERN THE BUSINESS COMMUNITYCNN Headline: “Romney’s China Attacks Worry Business” [CNN, 9/17/12]CNN: “U.S. Business Executives Are Growing Increasingly Worried By Mitt Romney's Vows That He'll Crack Down On China's Trade Policy If Elected.” [CNN, 9/17/12]CNN: “Big Business Is Worried That Some Of Romney's Rhetoric Over China Could Start A Trade War.” “Big business is worried that some of Romney's rhetoric over China could start a trade war. If China were declared to be a currency manipulator and Romney were to impose trade sanctions and block government purchases of Chinese goods, that could raise costs for U.S. businesses for goods and services they currently buy from China, analysts warn.” [CNN, 9/24/12]Reuters: Some In The Business Community Are Worried That Romney “Is Wasting Political Capital On The Currency Question When There Are Bigger Problems To Resolve With China.” “The saber-rattling from Romney has worried business executives. Behind closed doors, some grumble that he is wasting political capital on the currency question when there are bigger problems to resolve with China, such as access to its financial markets and protecting U.S. companies' intellectual property.” [Reuters, 6/13/12] The Chamber Of Commerce Announced Its Opposition To Mitt Romney’s Pledge To Designate China As A Currency Manipulator. “The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the largest business lobbying organization, opposes Mitt Romney’s pledge to designate China as a currency manipulator if he is elected president, the group’s chief operating officer said.” [Bloomberg, 9/27/12]Chamber Of Commerce Vice President David Chavern On Romney’s Position On Chinese Currency: “Picking Fights With Trading Partners Probably Isn’t The Best Way To Have Expansion Of The Global Trading System.” [Bloomberg, 9/27/12]Former Bush Economic Adviser Tony Fratto On Romney’s Threat To Declare China A Currency Manipulator: “What Would Happen Is We Would Badly Damage Our Relations With The Chinese While Also Raising The Question Of Consistency Regarding Other Nations That Also Manage Their Currency.”?[Politico, 9/15/12]FORMER AMBASSADOR TO CHINA AND ROMNEY ENDORSER JON HUNTSMAN HAS REPEATEDLY ATTACKED ROMNEY’S COMPETENCY LEVEL TO DEAL WITH CHINA Huntsman: Romney Doesn’t Understand The Situation With China And Romney’s Stated China Policies “Would Lead To A Trade War.”?Huntsman: “I think it's important to note, as they would say in China, that – [speaking Mandarin] he doesn't quite understand this situation. What he is calling for would lead to a trade war. It makes for easy talk and a nice applause line but it's far different from the reality in the U.S.-China relationship.”? [Huntsman, ABC News/WMUR Debate, 1/7/12]Huntsman Video: By Labeling China A Currency Manipulator, Romney Would Start A Trade War And Hurt Small Businesses. “The web video targets Romney, the former Massachusetts governor, for saying he would label China a currency manipulator. Huntsman has said that move would start a trade war and hurt small businesses in America.” [CNN, 11/14/11]Huntsman Attacking Romney For “Pandering” To “Get Applause” By Saying He Would Slap A Tariffs On China. Huntsman at the Brookings Institution: “Well, first of all, let’s call it what it is, it’s pandering.? It sounds good and you can get an applause out of the group when you say we’re going to slap a tariff on China, we’re going to go to war with China.” [Brookings Institution, 11/14/11]Iran: The Sanctions Are Working – We Have A Long Way To Go Before Military ActionROMNEY: THE CRIPPLING SANCTIONS ARE HAVING AN IMPACT AND “THERE’S GREAT HOPE AND REAL PROSPECTS FOR DISSUADING IRAN” FROM A NUCLEAR SETTINGRomney: “The Crippling Sanctions Do Have An Impact. They’re Having An Impact On Iran’s Economy Right Now… And There's Great Hope And Real Prospects For Dissuading Iran From Taking A Path That Leads Into A Nuclear Setting.” Romney: “I can tell you this, that the crippling sanctions do have an impact. They're having an impact on Iran's economy right now. They will have an impact on the public there in Iran. And there's great hope and real prospects for dissuading Iran from taking a path that leads into a nuclear setting.” [Situation Room, CNN, 10/9/12]Romney Suggested Sanctions Against Iran “Have Really Tightened The Screws Very Aggressively, That Those Economic Sanctions Are Having A Significant Impact On The Economy Of Iran.” ROMNEY: “Well in the meetings I've had, not only here and in Israel, but also meetings I’ve had with leaders in the UK and with briefings from individuals in the United States who follow the development in the Middle East at close range, there is the suggestion that the economic sanctions, particularly some of those put in place by Europe where they have really tightened the screws very aggressively, that those economic sanctions are having a significant impact on the economy of Iran.” [On The Record, Fox News, 7/30/12]Iran: Romney Has Offered No New Ideas Beyond Pushing The Red ButtonROMNEY HAS CRITICIZED PRESIDENT OBAMA ON IRAN, BUT HASN’T OFFERED ANY NEW SOLUTIONSNew York Times: “When Pressed On How, Exactly, His Strategy [On Iran] Would Differ From Mr. Obama’s, Mr. Romney Had A Hard Time Responding.”? [New York Times, 5/12/12]New York Times’ David Firestone: Romney Said He Would Disarm Iran By Imposing Crippling Sanctions And Keeping Military Options On The Table, Which “Is Exactly What The Obama Administration Has Already Done.” “On Sunday, Mr. Romney said Iran will finish a nuclear weapon if Mr. Obama is re-elected, but not if Mr. Romney defeats him. How, precisely, will he disarm Iran? By imposing crippling sanctions, he said, and keeping a military strike on the table. That, of course, is exactly what the Obama administration has already done (and what the last Republican president did not do well enough). The sanctions now in place are the toughest ever, choking off Iran’s exports.” [David Firestone, New York Times, 3/5/12]New York Times: Romney’s Plan To Rein In Iran’s Nuclear Ambitions “Amounts To What President Obama Is Doing.” “To rein in Tehran’s nuclear ambitions, Mitt Romney says he would conduct naval exercises in the Persian Gulf to remind Iran of American military might. He would try to ratchet up Security Council sanctions on Iran, targeting its Revolutionary Guards, and the country’s central bank and other financial institutions. And if Russia and China do not go along, he says, the United States should team up with other willing governments to put such punitive measures in place. As it turns out, that amounts to what President Obama is doing.” [New York Times, 3/6/12]CNN Fact Check: “During The 2012 Campaign, Romney Has Sought To Assure Voters That He Will Be Tougher Against Iran’s Nuclear Ambitions Than Obama, Although The Two Candidates’ Positions On Iran Are Nearly Identical, According To A Top Romney Adviser.” [Fact Check, CNN, 10/8/12]New York Times Editorial: “Mitt Romney Has Tried To Sound Tough, But It’s Hard To See How He Would Act Differently From Mr. Obama Except In Ways That Are Scary – Like Attacking Iran.” [Editorial, New York Times, 8/31/12]ROMNEY HAS ISSUED VOLATILE RHETORIC ON IRAN THREATENING “IF YOU WANT PEACE, PREPARE FOR WAR”ABC News: “Romney Also Doubled-Down On A Seemingly Subtle Bit Of Language That Could Push Up The Timeline For Confrontation With Iran Over Its Nuclear Program.” [ABC News, 10/9/12]Romney To Iran: “If You Want Peace, Prepare For War.” “The United States needs a very different policy. Si vis pacem, para bellum. That is a Latin phrase, but the ayatollahs will have no trouble understanding its meaning from a Romney administration: If you want peace, prepare for war.” [Mitt Romney Op-Ed, Wall Street Journal, 11/10/11]Romney Said He Would Be “As Ready To Engage Our Military Might” On Behalf Of Israel As He Is Ready To Engage In Diplomacy. Romney: “As President, I will be ready to engage in diplomacy. But I will be just as ready to engage our military might. Israel will know that America stands at its side, in all conditions and in all consequence.” [Romney Speech, AIPAC, 3/6/12]Romney When Asked If He Supported A “First Strike” Against Iran Either By Israel Or U.S.: “Yes.” Host: “Do you support a first strike against them, either by Israel or by us or a combination of the two to halt that process?” Romney: “Yes, and I think you actually have to act before they had a weapon, a deliverable weapon. They have to understand that we will take military, kinetic action if they continue to pursue a nuclear option. That is unacceptable to us. That is unacceptable to Israel. It's unacceptable to the world.” [Rick and Bubba Show, XM Radio, 3/9/12]Romney Said He Was “Being Pretty Serious” About The Idea Of Military Action Against Iran. “Mr. Obama accused the GOP field of taking the idea of war with Iran too casually. ‘I think all of us are being pretty serious,’ Mr. Romney said in his news conference.” [Wall Street Journal, 3/7/12; Romney Press Availability, 3/6/12]Romney Declined To Say What Kind Of Military Strike He Would Order To Stop Iran From Acquiring A Nuclear Weapon But Did Say “Of Course” He Was Prepared To Act Unilaterally. “BAIER: Charles Krauthammer asked, you pledged that as president you would stop Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon, the last resort, of course, a military attack. What you're saying is that you're prepared to carry it out if necessary. He asks, would it be a single strike or sustained bombing campaign like in Serbia, would it be aimed at only the weapons or the pillars of the regime if you got to that point? ROMNEY: Well, before I could make a decision of that nature, I'd have to have a very thorough top-secret briefing by our military to understand exactly what our options are, what the responses would be from the Iranian military. The intelligence community would have to weigh in. There's a lot more information I need to have to know what type of military strike would be appropriate and effective. BAIER: Would you be prepared to do it unilaterally if need be? ROMNEY: Of course.” [Special Report With Bret Baier, Fox News, 11/29/11]THE ROMNEY CAMPAIGN WAS SILENT ON TALKS WITH IRANThe Romney Campaign Didn’t Respond To Several Requests For Romney’s Position On Talks With Iran. “But when pressed on how, exactly, his strategy would differ from Mr. Obama’s, Mr. Romney had a hard time responding. The economic sanctions Mr. Obama has imposed have been far more crippling to the Iranian economy than anything President Bush did between the public revelation of Iran’s nuclear enrichment facilities in 2003 and the end of Mr. Bush’s term in early 2009. Covert action has been stepped up, too. Mr. [John] Bolton has called efforts to negotiate with Iran ‘delusional,’ but other advisers — mostly those who dealt with the issue during the Bush administration — say they are a critical step in holding together the European allies and, if conflict looms, proving to Russia and China that every effort was made to come to a peaceful resolution. Several e-mails to the campaign asking for Mr. Romney’s position on the talks yielded no response.” [New York Times, 5/12/12]Romney Advisers – Who Dealt With The Issue During The Bush Administration – Say That Critical To Holding Together A Coalition Against Iran Was Making Every Effort To Come To A Peaceful Resolution While John Bolton Has Called Negotiations With Iran “Delusional.” “Mr. [John] Bolton has called efforts to negotiate with Iran ‘delusional,’ but other advisers — mostly those who dealt with the issue during the Bush administration — say they are a critical step in holding together the European allies and, if conflict looms, proving to Russia and China that every effort was made to come to a peaceful resolution. Several e-mails to the campaign asking for Mr. Romney’s position on the talks yielded no response.” [New York Times, 5/12/12]Iran: Romney Held Investments In Iran2007: ROMNEY PLEDGED TO SHED INVESTMENTS IN ORDER TO CONFORM WITH HIS POLITICAL POSITIONS…August 2007: Romney: “My Trustee Has Indicated Publicly That He Will Make An Effort To Make Sure That My Investments To The Extent Possible And Practical, Will Conform With My Political Positions.”? “Romney also reaffirmed his desire that the blind trust overseeing his family fortune divest of interests involved with embryonic stem cell research or business deals with Iran. ‘My trustee has indicated publicly that he will make an effort to make sure that my investments to the extent possible and practical, will conform with my political positions,’ Romney told reporters during his half-hour visit to the sprawling Greenbrier County fairgrounds. A listing of investments in the trust published this week included companies that work with embryonic stem cells, and foreign energy firms with ties to Iran.” [Associated Press, 8/16/07]Romney Spokesman Kevin Madden: “The Trustee Has Said He Would Continue To Divest The Trust Of Securities Or Investments To The Best Of His Ability In A Manner Consistent With The Governor’s Public Statements And Pronouncements.” [Associated Press, 8/15/07]…BUT ROMNEY’S 2011 TAX RETURNS SHOW HE WAS INVESTED IN COMPANIES THAT DO BUSINESS WITH IRANRomney’s Tax Returns Show He Was Invested In The Chinese Oil Company, Cnooc Limited, Which Does Business With Iran. “Mitt Romney’s trust invested in Cnooc at a time when the US was growing concerned about the Chinese oil company’s multibillion-dollar dealings with Tehran, according to the 2011 tax return released by the Republican nominee for president. … The first investment by Mr Romney’s trust in Cnooc Limited, in October of 2009, was made about seven months after the group’s state-owned parent company was widely reported to have signed a deal with Iran to develop the huge North Pars gasfield for an LNG export project. In the US, the deal was viewed as part of a worrying effort by China to secure energy interests.” [Financial Times, 9/24/12]Romney Sold Some Foreign Stocks In 2011, Including “Two Chinese State-Owned Companies … That Have Done Business In Iran.” “Last year, Mr. Romney’s trust sold its stake in an array of foreign holdings, including two Chinese state-owned companies: an oil company and a bank that have done business in Iran. But Mr. Romney continues to have money in Bain funds with sizable holdings in China.? He has as much as $250,000 in the Bain Capital Asia Fund and as much as $1 million each in Bain Capital Funds IX and X, all Cayman Islands entities used by Bain to make sizable investments in China, according to the 2012 candidate financial disclosures and confidential Bain prospectuses obtained by The Times through a public records request.” [New York Times, 10/10/12]Romney’s Tax Return Showed He Was Invested In The Russian Company Gazprom. “Mitt Romney acquired and sold shares last year in the politically powerful Russian gas giant Gazprom. Ann and Mitt Romney's family trust return, released Friday, shows Romney sold his Gazprom stock at a loss last September in advance of election season.” [BuzzFeed, 9/23/12]Gazprom Was ?“Part Of A Group Of International Companies Operating In The Giant South Pars Gas Field” And “Established A Working Relationship With The National Iranian Oil Co. In 2008.” “Gazprom is part of a group of international companies operating in the giant South Pars gas field in the Persian Gulf, the largest gas complex in the world. Tehran, meanwhile, notes Gazprom could emerge as a partner in its long-awaited gas pipeline to Pakistan, which faces mounting scrutiny from Washington. Gazprom established a working relationship with the National Iranian Oil Co. in 2008.” [UPI, 1/14/10]Iran: Romney Would Defer To His Lawyers on Iran2007: ROMNEY SAID HE WOULD DEFER TO HIS LAWYERS ON MILITARY ACTION IN IRANRomney Said He Would Talk To His Lawyers Before Deciding Whether To Use Military Force. MR. MATTHEWS: “Governor Romney, that raises the question, if you were president of the United States, would you need to go to Congress to get authorization to take military action against Iran's nuclear facilities?” MR. ROMNEY: “You sit down with your attorneys and tell you what you have to do, but obviously, the president of the United States has to do what's in the best interest of the United States to protect us against a potential threat. The president did that as he was planning on moving into Iraq and received the authorization of Congress.” MR. MATTHEWS: “Did he need it?” MR. ROMNEY: “You know, we're going to let the lawyers sort out what he needed to do and what he didn't need to do, but certainly what you want to do is to have the agreement of all the people in leadership of our government, as well as our friends around the world where those circumstances are available.” [CNBC/WSJ GOP Debate, 10/9/07]InterventionRomney: “It Was The Right Decision To Go Into Iraq. I Supported It At The Time; I Support It Now.”?[NBC Republican Primary Debate,?1/24/08]Iraq: Romney Called Bringing Our Troops Home From Iraq TragicROMNEY CALLED THE END OF THE IRAQ WAR “TRAGIC”Romney: “It Is My View That The Withdrawal Of All Of Our Troops From Iraq Is Unfortunate… It’s More Than Unfortunate, I Think It’s Tragic.”?[Romney Veterans Roundtable, Mauldin SC, 11/11/11]ROMNEY CONTINUED TO ATTACK THE WITHDRAWAL OF TROOPS FROM IRAQ Romney Attacked President Obama For Withdrawing Troops From Iraq Adding: “America’s Ability To Influence Events For The Better In Iraq Has Been Undermined By The Abrupt Withdrawal Of Our Entire Troop Presence.”?“In Iraq, the costly gains made by our troops are being eroded by rising violence, a resurgent Al-Qaeda, the weakening of democracy in Baghdad, and the rising influence of Iran. And yet, America’s ability to influence events for the better in Iraq has been undermined by the abrupt withdrawal of our entire troop presence. The President tried—and failed—to secure a responsible and gradual drawdown that would have better secured our gains.” [Romney Foreign Policy Address, Lexington VA, 10/8/12]ROMNEY DIDN’T FORECLOSE ON THE POSSIBILITY OF SENDING TROOPS BACK INTO IRAQRomney Did Not Foreclose The Possibility Of Sending Troops Back Into Iraq. SAWYER referring to Iraq: “Governor Romney, you've said that you would not send troops in right now, but give us a sense of the trigger. What would it take for you to send troops back in? …” ROMNEY: “Well, you can't begin to say what the specific circumstances would be, but it would have to require significant, dramatic American interests. You'd have to have a president that explained those interests to the American people, that also indicated how we're going in. We'd go in with exceptional force. We would indicate what -- how success would be defined, how we would define, also, when we're completed, how we'd get our troops out, and what would be left behind.” [ABC News/WMUR Debate, 1/7/12]Romney Said “Reinserting Our Troops” In Iraq “Could Be Very Difficult” But He Would “See What The Circumstances Are At The Time.” “HH: Do you think that it’s possible to change that if you become the president, to get a status of forces agreement, and to get American troops in some decent amount back into Iraq? MR: Well, we’re going to have to see what the circumstances are at the time the new president takes the oath of office. If our troops have all left, and have been out for a year, and our bases are closed, why the idea of reinserting our troops could be very difficult. We’ll see what the feeling is of the Iraqi leadership, and whether they would welcome involvement by our troops again, and in what way. But I have not spoken with military leaders with regards to this, but my guesstimate would be that if we pull all of our troops out by December of this year out of Iraq, that it would be very difficult indeed to have them move back in.” [Hugh Hewitt Show, 11/18/11]ROMNEY WANTED TO LEAVE TENS OF THOUSANDS OF TROOPS IN IRAQ WITH NO STRATEGYRomney Attacked President Obama’s Decision To Pull Troops From Iraq But “Has Not Made Clear What He Would Prefer U.S. Troops To Do … If They Stayed” In Iraq. “Romney quickly blasted Obama’s decision to pull troops from Iraq this year, ahead of most Republicans and conservative foreign policy voices. In a New Hampshire speech last month, he called the decision ‘either a monumental political calculation on his part or... a monumental failure.’ The candidate has not made clear what he would prefer U.S. troops to do, however, if they stayed.” [National Journal, 11/12/11]Romney: “This President's Failure To Put In Place A Status Of Forces Agreement, Allowing 10,000 To 20,000 Troops To Stay In Iraq? Unthinkable.” [Romney Fundraiser, Boca Raton, FL, 5/17/12]Romney: Not Keeping 10,000-30,000 Troops In Iraq Is One Of Obama’s “Signature Failures.” “A consistent front-runner in polls of Republicans, Romney said he feared leaving Iraq without a stabilization force could put the hard-earned successes and victories there at risk. ‘I hope that risk is not realized. I hope that we're able to see stability there but the president's failure to secure an agreement and maintain 10,000 to 30,000 troops in Iraq has to be one of his signature failures,’ he told Reuters.” [Reuters, 12/22/11]ROMNEY’S FOREIGN POLICY WHITE PAPER DIDN’T PROPOSE A CLEAR STRATEGY FOR IRAQRomney’s Foreign Policy White Paper Portion On Iraq Said Only That It Would Be “Impossible To Forecast What Conditions In Iraq Will Confront The Next American President” And He Would Use “The Broad Array Of Our Foreign-Policy Tools” To Establish A Lasting Relationship With Iraq. “In light of these developments, it is impossible to forecast what conditions in Iraq will confront the next American president in January 2013. Mitt Romney will enter office seeking to use the broad array of our foreign-policy tools — diplomatic, economic, and military — to establish a lasting relationship with Iraq and guarantee that Baghdad remains a solid partner in a volatile and strategically vital region.” [Romney’s Foreign Policy White Paper, 10/7/11]Israel: Romney Would “Do The Opposite” Of President ObamaROMNEY SAID HE WOULD JUST “DO THE OPPOSITE” OF PRESIDENT OBAMA ON ISRAELRomney Said His Plans For A Relationship With Israel Would Be To “Just Look At The Things The President Has Done And Do The Opposite.” QUESTION: “How will you as president strengthen our relationship with our strongest ally in the Middle East, the state of Israel?” ROMNEY: “Well, I think, by and large, you could just look at the things the president has done and do the opposite.” [Romney Speech, Faith And Freedom Coalition, 6/16/12]Israel: Romney’s Attacks On Israel Are Over The TopROMNEY’S ATTACKS ON THE PRESIDENT’S RELATIONSHIP WITH ISRAEL IS “COMICALLY OVER THE TOP” – “CURRENT U.S.-ISRAEL RELATIONS ARE BETTER NOW THAT UNDER PRESIDENT H.W. BUSH”Los Angeles Times Editorial: “Romney’s Indictment Of Obama As Unfriendly To Israel Was Almost Comically Over The Top.” “But the devil is in the details, and Romney was frugal with them. True, there has been some friction between Obama and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, as there has been between American and Israeli leaders in the past. But Romney's indictment of Obama as unfriendly to Israel was almost comically over the top. No less deceptive was his suggestion that national security was threatened by ‘Obama's massive defense cuts,’ a reference to planned across-the-board spending cuts agreed to as part of last year's bipartisan deal to raise the debt ceiling.” [Editorial, Los Angeles Times, 7/26/12]Time’s Joe Klein Fact Checks Romney: Current U.S.-Israeli Relations Are Better Now Than Under President George H.W. Bush. “Actually, US-Israeli relations are better than they were when George H.W. Bush was President and Secretary of State Jim Baker threatened to cut off aid if Israel didn’t stop expanding its illegal settlements on the West Bank, and (then) in Gaza. And among the few good things Jimmy Carter accomplished overseas was the Camp David Accords, which has provided a generation of peace between Israel and Egypt, a peace now jeopardized by the Arab Spring.” [Swampland, Time, 12/1/11]Israel: Romney Would “Kick The Ball Down The Field” Rather Than Work Toward A Two-State SolutionROMNEY SAID HE “KICK THE BALL DOWN THE FIELD” RATHER THAN WORK TOWARD A TWO-STATE SOLUTIONRomney: “You Hope For Some Degree Of Stability, But You Recognize That This Is Going To Remain An Unsolved Problem And We Kick The Ball Down The Field And Hope That Ultimately, Somehow, Something Will Happen And Resolve It.” [Romney Fundraiser, Boca Raton, FL, 5/17/12]New York Times: “Last Spring, Mr. Romney Was Caught On Tape Telling Donors He Believed There Was ‘Just No Way’ A Two-State Solution To The Israeli-Palestinian Conflict Could Work.” [New York Times, 10/8/12]Associated Press: “Romney Told Donors In A Newly Released Video Clip That Palestinians ‘Have No Interest’ In Peace With Israel And Suggested That Efforts At Mideast Peace Under His Administration Would Languish.” [Associated Press, 9/18/12]Boston Globe Headline: “Mitt Romney, In Another Fundraiser Video, Says Israeli-Palestinian Conflict ‘Is Going To Remain An Unsolved Problem’” [Boston Globe, 9/18/12]Los Angeles Times: “In Private Remarks To Donors, GOP Presidential Nominee Mitt Romney Questioned The Viability Of A Two-State Solution To The Israel Palestinian Dispute, A Longtime Staple Of Official U.S. Policy, Saying That Palestinians Don’t Want Peace.” [Los Angeles Times, 9/18/12]Businessweek: “Romney Discounted The Prospects For Middle East Peace Between Israel And Palestinians, A Goal That Has Been Sought For Decades By Presidents From Both Parties.” [Businessweek, 9/18/12]ROMNEY SAID WE CAN’T DISCUSS A PEACE PROCESS RIGHT NOWRomney, Citing Volatility In The Region, Said That Talking About An Israeli-Palestinian Peace Process “Right NowIs A Bit Like Setting Up A Tent In The Middle Of A Hurricane.” “In response to a question from the gathering, which Mr. Romney addressed by satellite, he suggested the region is currently too volatile to push ahead with the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. ‘Talking about a peace process right now is a bit like setting up a tent in the middle of a hurricane,’ he said.” [Wall Street Journal, 3/6/12; Romney AIPAC Q&A, 3/6/12]ROMNEY CALLED PALESTINIANS TERRORISTS “WHO DON’T WANT A TWO-STATE SOLUTION. THEY WANT TO ELIMINATE THE STATE OF ISRAEL”Romney: “The Israelis Would Be Happy To Have A Two-State Solution. It's The Palestinians Who Don't Want A Two-State Solution. They Want To Eliminate The State Of Israel.” [CNN Florida Debate, 1/26/12]Romney: “We Don’t Negotiate With Terrorists And The President Was Suggesting That Israel Should.” [Hannity, Fox, 6/2/11]Associated Press: In The World According To Romney The Palestinians Are Out To Destroy Israel. “The world according to Republican presidential front-runner Mitt Romney: Europeans are socialists. The Chinese are currency manipulators. Russia can't be trusted to abide by nuclear agreements. The Palestinians are out to destroy Israel. And the U.S. is too generous with humanitarian aid.” [Associated Press, 2/17/12]Romney: “When Sovereignty Was Give On The Palestinians In The Gaza Strip, They Didn't Build Roads, They Didn't Build Hospitals, They Didn't Build Schools Or Businesses. Instead, They Bought Rockets, Millions And Millions Of Dollars Worth Of Rockets. They Were Intent On Destroying Israel.”? Romney: “Well, you look at the -- their current circumstances in Gaza, and you say to yourself, why in the world did Israel allow the rockets to be blasted into Israel year after year, 6,400 rockets shot into Israel without real military response? From the very beginning, there should have been response to say this is unacceptable. Hamas was very clearly not a government intent on helping their people. When sovereignty was give on the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip, they didn't build roads, they didn't build hospitals, they didn't build schools or businesses. Instead, they bought rockets, millions and millions of dollars worth of rockets. They were intent on destroying Israel. And in a circumstance like that, Israel has no choice but to take military action. They're taking it now. It's terribly unfortunate. But the cause of this is the constant attack over the last several years by Hamas.” [Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer, CNN,1/4/09]Libya: Romney Has Been All Over The Map On LibyaROMNEY HAS BEEN ALL OVER THE MAP ON THE U.S. INVOLVEMENT IN LIBYARomney’s Position On U.S. Military Operations In Libya Had Been Muddled. “Romney’s position on U.S. military operations in Libya has been far more muddled than his denunciation of the African nation’s leader.” [ABC News, 10/20/11]Los Angeles Times: On Libya, Romney “Did Not Say How His Approach Would Differ From Obama's.” “On the subject of Libya, for example, Romney said he would work to build a democratic nation and to pursue those who recently killed four Americans in Benghazi. But he did not say how his approach would differ from Obama's. Administration officials have been working with the Libyans toward both those objectives.” [Los Angeles Times, 10/8/12]Analyst At Aspen Institute, Roberto Menotti:?“On Libya, Romney Was Aggressive But Vague.” “‘On Libya, Romney was aggressive but vague; on Syria, he was vague; and on Russia, he said he would be tougher, but it is not clear how,’ [analyst at Aspen Institute Italy, Roberto] Menotti said.” [Defense News, 10/13/12] New York Times: Romney Called “Vaguely For Support For Libya's ‘Efforts To Forge A Lasting Government’ And To Pursue The ‘Terrorists Who Attacked Our Consulate’” But He “Does Not Say He Say What Resources He Would Devote To Those Tasks.” “Mr. Romney's [foreign policy] speech today calls vaguely for support for Libya's ‘efforts to forge a lasting government’ and to pursue the ‘terrorists who attacked our consulate in Benghazi and killed Americans.’ And he said he would ‘recommit America to the goal of a democratic, prosperous Palestinian state living side by side in peace and security’ with Israel. But he does not say he say what resources he would devote to those tasks.” [New York Times, 10/08/12]Romney Has Been “All Over The Libyan Map” On US Involvement In The NATO Mission In Libya. “Have you had any difficulty discerning Republican presidential frontrunner Mitt Romney’s precise position on the US involvement in the NATO mission in Libya? The one consistency has been criticism of President Obama. But beyond that, he’s seemed a bit all over the Libyan map.” [ABC News, 10/20/11]ABC News: “Romney's Position On The U.S.'s Use Of Force In Libya Is A Bit Foggy.” [ABC News, 11/16/11]ROMNEY FLIP-FLOPPED ON REMOVING QADDAFIRomney Flip-Flopped On The Removal Of Qaddafi From Power In Libya. ?“On Libya, Romney, unsurprisingly, flip-flopped again. At first he attacked Obama for joining a coalition to remove Qadhafi from power. Then, once the dictator was forced out, Romney said ‘the whole world celebrates the removal of Qadhafi.’” [Politico, 10/6/11]Flip: Romney Attacked Obama For Calling For The Removal Of Qaddafi Saying “Who’s Going To Own Libya If We Get Rid Of The Government There?” “During remarks in New Hampshire in last month, Mitt Romney accused President Obama of ‘mission muddle’ for expanding United States operations in Libya beyond enforcing a no-fly zone to a wider goal of preventing Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi from attacking his own people. ‘Now the president is saying we have to remove Qaddafi,’ Mr. Romney said at the time, adding, ‘Who’s going to own Libya if we get rid of the government there?’” [New York Times, 8/22/11]Flop: Romney Said “The World Celebrates The Removal Of Qaddafi.” “But on Monday evening, as the rebels surged through Tripoli, Mr. Romney told Neil Cavuto of Fox Business Network that ‘the world celebrates the idea of getting rid of Qaddafi.’ And instead of assessing Mr. Obama’s actions, he called on a new Libyan government to extradite the man convicted in the 1988 Lockerbie bombing.” [New York Times, 8/22/11]Romney: “I Think It’s About Time. [Qaddafi], A Terrible Tyrant That Killed His Own People And Murdered Americans…The World Is A Better Place With [Qaddafi] Gone.”?[Boston Globe,?10/20/11]Libya: Romney Was Panned For Politicizing The Attacks On Our Diplomatic MissionsROMNEY WAS WIDELY PANNED FOR POLITICIZING ATTACKS ON OUR DIPLOMATIC MISSIONS IN THE MIDDLE EASTWashington Post Headline: “Mitt Romney Has Mess To Clean Up After Falsely Accusing Obama On Libya.” [Dana Milbank, Washington Post, 9/12/12]Boston Globe Headline: “Romney’s Comments Raise Doubts About His Foreign-Policy Savvy.” [Editorial, Boston Globe, 9/13/12]Washington Post Headline: “Romney Owes An Apology.” [Ruth Marcus, Washington Post, 9/13/12]Former Bush Deputy Secretary Of State Richard Armitage: Romney “Will Find Out That First Reports From The Battlefield Are Always Incorrect. This Should Be His Mantra, So He Can Speak In A Deliberate Manner, And Not Have To Repent At His Leisure Later.” [Bloomberg, 9/13/12]Former McCain Advisor Anthony Cordesmann: Romney’s Remarks Were “The Worst Possible Reaction To What Happened” – “We Need To Be Extremely Cautious About Rushing Out And Politicizing It.” ?“The early reviews on Romney’s handling of the episode were not glowing. Former New Hampshire Sen. John Sununu, a Republican, told reporters that Romney ‘should have waited’ to release the statement. Others were more critical. ‘It is a natural product of the election, but it is the worst possible reaction to what happened,’ said Anthony Cordesman, a Republican foreign policy expert who has advised John McCain. ‘We need to be extremely cautious about rushing out and politicizing it.’” [Time, 9/12/12]Republican Strategist Ed Rogers: “At This Solemn, Serious Moment, Mitt Romney Had To Be Crisp And Precise.? He Was Neither. At Times, Romney Jumbled His Words And Appeared To Be Winging It. The President Had To Display Stature And Resolve. He Did Both.” [Ed Rogers, Washington Post, 9/12/12]Former Bush Official Nicholas Burns Op-Ed: Romney’s Statements Were “So Reckless And Irresponsible That It Prompts The Inevitable Question: What Kind Of Commander-In-Chief Would He Be?” [Nicholas Burns op-ed, Boston Globe, 9/13/12]Former Bush State Department Official: “It Wasn't Presidential Of Romney To Go Political Immediately -- A Tragedy Of This Magnitude Should Be Something The Nation Collectively Grieves Before Politics Enters The Conversation." [Buzzfeed, 9/12/12]Former McCain 2008 Campaign Aide On Romney Statement On Embassy Attack: “Not Ready For Primetime.” [Buzzfeed, 9/12/12]ROMNEY SAID HE WOULD “WORK TO FIND A WAY TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE OPPORTUNITY” REFERENCING A CRISIS LIKE THE IRAN HOSTAGE SITUATIONRomney: “In The Jimmy Carter Election, The—The Fact That We Had Hostages In—In—In Iran, I Mean That Was All We Talked About” And “If Something Of That Nature Presents Itself, I—I Will Work To Find A Way To Take Advantage Of The Opportunity.” ROMNEY: “I-- I-- I can't-- one of the things that's frustrating me is that-- on a typical day like this when I do three or four events like this, the number of foreign policy questions I get are between zero and one. And the American people (LAUGHTER) are not-- (FEMALE VOICE: UNINTEL) --are not concentrated at all upon China, on Russia, Iran, Iraq. This president's failure to put in place a Status of Forces agreement, allowing 10,000 to 20,000 troops to stay in Iraq? Unthinkable. And-- and yet in-- in that election, in the Jimmy Carter election, the-- the fact that we had hostages in-- in-- in Iran, I mean that was all we talked about. And we had the two helicopters crash in the desert. I mean that's-- that was-- that was the focus. And so him solving that made all the difference in the world. I'm afraid today if you simply got Iran to agree to stand down on their nuclear weapon they'd go-- you know, hold on. It's really-- you know, but-- but, by the way, if something of that nature-- presents itself, I-- I will work to find a way to take advantage of the opportunity.” [Romney Fundraiser, Boca Raton, FL, 5/17/12]Buzzfeed Headline: “Romney Said He’d Take Advantage Of Iran Hostage-Like ‘Opportunity’” [Buzzfeed, 9/18/12]Buzzfeed: “Mitt Romney Was Asked At His May 17 Florida Fundraiser — The Subject Of A Now-Ubiquitous Leaked Video — How He Could ‘Duplicate’ The 1980 Hostage Crisis Scenario, Credited With Defeating Jimmy Carter. In Response, The Presidential Candidate Said: ‘I Mean, If Something Of That Nature Presents Itself I Will Work To Find A Way To Take Advantage Of The Opportunity.’” [Buzzfeed, 9/18/12]Pakistan: Romney Attacked Those Who Wanted To Go Into Pakistan UnilaterallyROMNEY ATTACKED PRESIDENT OBAMA AND DISAGREED WITH GOING INTO PAKISTAN UNILATERALLY?TO TAKE OUT HIGH VALUED TERRORISTS Romney Said He Didn’t Agree With Obama on Taking Unilateral Action Against Al Qaeda Targets in Pakistan Saying “I Do Not Concur In The Words Of Barack Obama In A Plan To Enter An Ally Of Ours.”? “Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney criticized Democrat Barack Obama on Friday for vowing to strike al Qaeda targets inside Pakistan if necessary as the Obama camp issued a strident defense of his plan… ‘I do not concur in the words of Barack Obama in a plan to enter an ally of ours... I don't think those kinds of comments help in this effort to draw more friends to our effort,’ Romney told reporters on the campaign trail. Obama on Wednesday said if elected president in November 2008 he would be willing to launch military strikes against al Qaeda targets inside Pakistan with or without the approval of the Pakistani government of President Pervez Musharraf.” [Reuters, 8/4/07]Romney: “I Do Not Concur In The Words Of Barack Obama In A Plan To Enter An Ally Of Ours And Their Country In A Manner Complete With Bombing And So Forth. I Don’t Think Those Kind Of Comments Help In This Effort To Draw More Friends To Our Effort.” [Romney Interview, Radio Iowa, 8/3/07 (AUDIO)]Romney Called President Obama’s Promise To Take Out High Valued Terrorist Targets In Pakistan “Ill-Timed And Ill-Considered.” Mike Glover of the Associated Press asked Romney about Obama’s promise to unilaterally take out high valued terrorist targets in Pakistan: “You disagree with his suggestion of sending troops in.” Romney: “I think his comments were ill-timed and ill-considered.” [Romney Interview, Radio Iowa, 8/3/07 (AUDIO)]Romney Opposed Unilateral Action In Pakistan To Take Out High Valued Terrorist Targets Adding “We Want, As A Civilized World, To Participate With Other Nations In This Civilized Effort To Help Those Nations Reject The Extreme Within Them. That Doesn’t Mean Our Troops Are Going To Go All Over The World.” Romney said of Obama’s promise to unilaterally take out high valued terrorist targets in Pakistan:“I do not concur in the words of Barack Obama in a plan to enter an ally of ours and their country in a manner complete with bombing and so forth. I don’t think those kind of comments help in this effort to draw more friends to our effort. But certainly there is a war being waged by terrorists of different types and nature across the world. We want, as a civilized world, to participate with other nations in this civilized effort to help those nations reject the extreme within them. That doesn’t mean our troops are going to go all over the world.” [Romney Interview, Radio Iowa, 8/3/07 (AUDIO)]DECEMBER 2007: ROMNEY ATTACKED HUCKABEE FOR ADVOCATING ACTION AGAINST TERRORISTS IN PAKISTAN WITHOUT APPROVAL 2007: ROMNEY ATTACKED HUCKABEE FOR ADVOCATING ACTION AGAINST TERRORISTS IN PAKISTAN WITHOUT APPROVAL IN A FOREIGN AFFAIRS OP-ED, AND CLAIMED HUCKABEE’S POSITION WAS TAKEN FROM DEMOCRATS LIKE SENATOR OBAMADecember 2007: Romney Attacked Huckabee For Advocating Action Against Terrorists In Pakistan Without Their Approval, Claiming He “Cribbed” His Foreign Policy Ideas From Democrats. In a press release on “Huckabee’s Playground Diplomacy,” Mitt Romney attacked GOP rival Mike Huckabee on foreign policy, claiming he “Blames Bush, Copies Clinton & Obama Talking Points.” Romney targeted Huckabee for advocating military action against al Qaeda targets in Pakistan. In a section entitled “CRIBBED FROM DEMOCRATS” the press release claimed, “Huckabee/Democrat Talking Point #3 – Attack Your Allies.” It criticized Huckabee’s Foreign Affairs essay in which he suggested “attacking targets in Pakistan without Pakistani approval.”[Press Release, Romney For President, ‘Huckabee’s Playground Diplomacy,’ 12/15/07]Romney Press Release: “Huckabee's Playground Diplomacy.” [Press Release, Romney For President, ‘Huckabee’s Playground Diplomacy,’ 12/15/07]Romney Press Release Research Bullet: “Huckabee Suggests Attacking Targets In Pakistan Without Pakistani Approval. ‘Despite the Bush administration's continued claims that the U.S. military will pursue 'actionable targets,' according to a July 2007 article in The New York Times based on interviews with a dozen current and former military and defense officials, a classified raid targeting bin Laden's top deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri, in Pakistan was aborted in early 2005. Then Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld called off the attack at the very last minute, as Navy Seals in parachutes were preparing in C-130s in Afghanistan, because he felt he needed Musharraf's permission to proceed. Why did Rumsfeld, instead of President Bush, call off the attack? Did he ask for Musharraf's permission or assume he would not get it? When I am president, I will make the final call on such actions. ... Rather than wait for the next strike, I prefer to cut to the chase by going after al Qaeda's safe havens in Pakistan.’ (Gov. Mike Huckabee, ‘America's Priorities In The War On Terror,’ Foreign Affairs, 1-2/08)” [Huckabee op-ed, 12/15/07; Press Release, Romney For President, ‘Huckabee’s Playground Diplomacy,’ 12/15/07]Romney Press Release Research Bullet: “Sen. Obama Recently Suggested Attacking Inside Pakistan Without Pakistani Approval. ‘Obama said if elected in November 2008 he would be willing to attack inside Pakistan with or without approval from the Pakistani government, a move that would likely cause anxiety in the already troubled region. 'If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will,' Obama said.’ (Steve Holland, ‘Tough Talk On Pakistan From Obama,’ Reuters, 8/1/07)” [Reuters, 8/1/07; Press Release, Romney For President, ‘Huckabee’s Playground Diplomacy,’ 12/15/07]Russia: Romney Called Russia Our “Number One Geopolitical Foe”ROMNEY CALLED RUSSIA OUR “NUMBER ONE GEOPOLITICAL FOE” THOUGH REPUBLICANS DISAGREEDNew York Times Editorial: That Romney Considers Russia To Be America’s “No. 1 Geopolitical Foe” Showed “Either A Shocking Lack Of Knowledge About International Affairs Or Just Craven Politics.” “Two decades after the end of the cold war, Mitt Romney still considers Russia to be America’s ‘No. 1 geopolitical foe.’ His comments display either a shocking lack of knowledge about international affairs or just craven politics. Either way, they are reckless and unworthy of a major presidential contender.” [Editorial, New York Times, 3/29/12]Romney’s Claim That Russia Was America’s “No. 1 Geopolitical Foe” Fanned “Concerns Among Both Romney Supporters And Nonpartisan Foreign-Policy Experts That Mr. Romney's Desire To Contrast Himself With President Barack Obama Has Led The GOP Candidate To Take Positions That Would Be Difficult To Maintain If He Wins The Presidency.” “Mitt Romney's labeling of Russia this week as America's ‘No. 1 geopolitical foe’ has drawn attention to his emerging hawkishness on several foreign policy fronts, from China's monetary policy to the war in Afghanistan—a trend that contrasts to his more muted style on domestic issues. The Russia remark has fanned concerns among both Romney supporters and nonpartisan foreign-policy experts that Mr. Romney's desire to contrast himself with President Barack Obama has led the GOP candidate to take positions that would be difficult to maintain if he wins the presidency.” [Wall Street Journal, 3/29/12]Colin Powell On Romney Calling Russia Our Number One Geopolitical Foe: “Come On, Mitt, Think. That Isn’t The Case.”?“One of the GOP's foreign-policy heavyweights, Colin Powell, took Mitt Romney to task for calling Russia the United States’ ‘No. 1 geopolitical foe.’ ‘Come on, Mitt, think. That isn’t the case,’ Powell, the former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said on MSNBC's Morning Joe this morning.” [NBC, First Read,?5/23/12]Sen. Lindsey Graham: “I Don't See [Russia] As Our No. 1 Strategic Foe.” “On Capitol Hill, top Republicans have little praise for Medvedev or Russia and maintain that Moscow has played an unhelpful international role and represses its own citizens. But these lawmakers see Russia as a power in decline and therefore not worthy of the title of America's ‘No. 1 geopolitical foe.’ ‘I don't see them as our No. 1 strategic foe because they've got a weak economy and structurally are not very strong. China could potentially be more harming to our interests because of the growth of their economy and the growth of their military,’ Senate Armed Services Committee member Lindsey Graham (R-SC) told The Cable.” [Foreign Policy, 3/28/12]Sen. John McCain Would Not Say Russia Was The No. 1 Geopolitical Foe Of The United States And Said Russia Was “In Many Ways … Declining.” “Senate Armed Services Committee ranking Republican John McCain (R-AZ) told The Cable that he agreed with Romney that Obama's comments about flexibility on missile defense were alarming, but he wouldn't say Russia was the No. 1 geopolitical foe of the United States. ‘I think they are a strategic challenge,’ McCain said. ‘They continue to supply [Syrian President] Bashar al Assad while he slaughters Syrians and they continue to obviously oppose our missile-defense systems. They continue to be an oppressive and repressive regime.’ ‘Fortunately in many ways they are declining. But this recent consolidation of power shows a lack of democracy there," McCain said.” [Foreign Policy, 3/28/12]Russia: Romney’s Opposition To START Put Him Outside Of The MainstreamROMNEY’S VIEWS ON RUSSIA PUT HIM AT ODDS WITH HIS FOREIGN POLICY ADVISERS AND REPUBLICAN “REALISTS”Romney Was “One Of The Most Vocal Critics” Against START Treaty Negotiated By President Obama Despite How “Virtually The Entire Non-Neocon National Security Establishment … Overwhelmingly Disagreed” With Romney’s Analysis. “Romney, not previously known as an expert in strategic arms reduction, was also one of the most vocal critics of the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty Obama reached with Russia in 2010; he argued in the Washington Post that Obama team had been ‘badly out-negotiated,’ and that the treaty gave Russia an effective veto over future American missile defense systems. (Never mind that virtually the entire non-neocon national security establishment– including Henry Kissinger, Colin Powell, Condi Rice, Stephen Hadley, and a slew of top military leaders, along with George H.W. Bush–overwhelmingly disagreed with this analysis.)” [TIME, 3/27/12]Romney’s Call For Republicans To Block Ratification Of The New Start Treaty Put Him At Odds With All Five Living Republican Former Secretaries Of State. “On the few matters in which Mr. Romney has offered a clearer difference, he has echoed the confrontational approach taken by Dick Cheney, John R. Bolton and other hard-line conservatives from the Bush years. For example, he called Russia the ‘No. 1 geopolitical foe’ of the United States and said he would designate China a currency manipulator on his first day in office. His call for Republicans to block ratification of the New Start treaty put him at odds with all five living Republican former secretaries of state, including Ms. Rice.” [Brian Katulis Op-ed, New York Times, 8/31/12]Romney’s Views On Russia Have “Put Him At Odds” With Some Of His Foreign Policy Advisers And Republican Foreign Policy “Realists.” “Mr. Romney’s views on Russia have set off disagreements among some of his foreign policy advisers. They put him in sync with the more conservative members of his party in Congress, who have similarly criticized Mr. Obama as being too accommodating to Russia, and generally reflect the posture of some neoconservatives. But they have frequently put him at odds with members of the Republican foreign policy establishment, like Senator Richard G. Lugar of Indiana, who was defeated in a primary this week, and the party’s shrinking band of foreign policy ‘realists’ — those who advocate a less ideological and more pragmatic view of relations with rival powers.” [New York Times, 5/11/12]Many Russia Experts “Including Some Close To [Romney’s] Campaign,” “See A Declining Power That The United States Will Need To Help Manage Global Challenges” Instead Of America’s Major Foe. “Some former diplomats and Russia specialists, and some leading Republicans in Congress, have also questioned his characterization of the country as America’s major foe. Many experts, including some close to his campaign, see a declining power that the United States will need to help manage global challenges. Some analysts also say Mr. Romney understates the help Russia has provided in dealing with rogue states, like backing a heavy-arms embargo and other sanctions against Iran in 2010.” [New York Times, 5/11/12]Thomas De Waal, A Russia Expert At The Carnegie Endowment For International Peace: “There’s A Whole School Of Thought That Russia Is One You Need To Work With To Solve Other Problems In The World, Rather Than Being The Problem.” [New York Times, 5/11/12]Although Romney Believes Natural Resources Could Make Russia A Major Player, “Many Analysts Say Russia’s Fate Is So Closely Tied To Oil Exports That Anything Short Of A Sustained Rise In Prices Will Lead To Cuts In Spending On The Military And Social Programs.” “Mr. Romney says natural resources could vault Russia to a position of global influence rivaling any nation by midcentury. But many analysts say Russia’s fate is so closely tied to oil exports that anything short of a sustained rise in prices will lead to cuts in spending on the military and social programs. Citigroup estimates that oil must reach $150 a barrel in coming years (from current export prices of $120) for Russia to pay for Mr. Putin’s spending promises.” [New York Times, 5/11/12]Syria: Romney Has No PlanROMNEY HAS FAILED TO OUTLINE A COHERENT STRATEGY FOR SYRIABoston Globe Headline: “Romney’s Stance On Syria A Work In Progress.” [Boston Globe, 6/19/12]Washington Post Editorial: “On Syria, [Ryan] Had The Unenviable Job Of Defending Mitt Romney’s Proposal, Which, As Best I Can Figure Out, Is To Criticize Obama’s Approach But Essentially Do The Same Thing.” [Editorial Washington Post, 10/10/12]Reuters: Ryan “Could Not Explain What More A Romney Administration Would Do” On Syria “Beyond Tightening Cooperation With Regional Allies And Syrian Rebels – Both Of Which The Obama Administration Has Already Done.” “Ryan denied there were any proposals to send troops to Syria, but could not explain what more a Romney administration would do beyond tightening cooperation with regional allies and Syrian rebels - both of which the Obama administration has already done.” [Reuters, 10/12/12]New York Times: “But From Libya And Iran To Afghanistan And Syria, Mr. Ryan Offered Proposals That Differed From Those Of Mr. Obama In Nuance Rather Than Substance.” [New York Times, 10/12/12]Reuters: Ryan Gave Few New Details On Syria. “Vice President Joe Biden challenged his rival Paul Ryan on Thursday to show how a Republican administration would alter U.S. foreign policy in a dangerous world, but extracted few new details on issues including Iran, Syria and Afghanistan.” [Reuters, 10/12/12]American Enterprise Institute Analyst Michael Rubin: “Romney’s [Syria] Policy Is Simply Probably Going To Be To Do The Opposite Of Whatever Obama Is Doing. This Election Isn’t About Foreign Policy, And Romney Is Going To Be A Foreign-Policy Opportunist — Not Leading, But Sniping From Behind.” [Hill, 5/30/12]On A Romney Campaign Conference Call, Surrogates Offered “Few Specifics” As To What Romney Would Do Differently From President Obama In Syria. “While Biden spoke of an overarching foreign policy philosophy, Romney’s surrogates during a Thursday conference call before the vice president’s speech tended to focus on a few issues, albeit with few specifics. Without detailing a specific new plan for U.S. engagement in Syria, Romney’s campaign surrogates blasted the administration’s involvement there and accused Obama of deferring to the Russians. … But when faced with questions about what specifically Romney would do differently in Syria, the surrogates offered few specifics.” [Politico, 4/26/12]Syria: Romney Would Arm The Opposition Without Regard To Where The Weapons Might End UpROMNEY SAID HE WOULD GIVE OPPOSITION GROUPS WEAPONS THAT COULD DEFEAT “TANKS, HELICOPTERS, AND FIGHTER JETS”Romney Said That In Syria He Would Help The Opposition Groups “Obtain The Arms They Need To Defeat Assad’s Tanks, Helicopters, And Fighter Jets.” “In Syria, I will work with our partners to identify and organize those members of the opposition who share our values and then ensure they obtain the arms they need to defeat Assad’s tanks, helicopters, and fighter jets. Iran is sending arms to Assad because they know his downfall would be a strategic defeat for them.” [Romney Foreign Policy Address, Lexington VA, 10/8/12]?ROMNEY CALLED FOR THE UNITED STATES TO HELP ARM THE SYRIAN OPPOSITION GROUPS WITHOUT REGARD TO WHERE THOSE WEAPONS MIGHT END UPAsked How He Would Ensure Weapons Don’t Fall Into The Wrong Hands In Syria, Romney Foreign Policy Advisor Dan Senor Said “We Don’t Have A Choice… We Have To Make It Work” We Will Just “Try To” Weed Out The Bad Actors. BLIZTER: “Dan, how do you make sure though that those weapons don't fall into the wrong hands? Because there has been some concern. The Obama administration is deeply concerned. Shoulder fire missiles, for example, could pose a threat to U.S. aircraft, Israeli aircraft. How do you make sure they don't fall into the wrong hands?” SENOR: “Well, We don't have a choice, Wolf, we have to make it work. We have to make the policy work… Now, we should have gotten involved much sooner in terms of getting resources through our regional allies, through our partners – the Saudis, the Qataris, the Turks. So that the opposition in its early days – we could identify the moderates, identify the people we could work with. Weed out the bad actors, or at least try to, and give the moderate forces an upper hand. This gets harder and harder with time, so we are way behind right now.” [Situation Room, CNN, 10/10/11]Romney Foreign Policy Advisor Dan Senor On Syria: “We Should Have Gotten Involved Much Sooner In Terms Of Getting Resources Through Our Regional Allies, Through Our Partners – The Saudis, The Qataris, The Turks.” [Situation Room, CNN, 10/10/11]Associated Press: Romney Has Called For The U.S. To “Arm The Opposition” In Syria, But He Has Offered “Little Sense Of What He Would Do If The Ensuing Battles Didn’t Push Assad From Power, Or, If They Did, What Type Of Political Transition He Would Support.” “Romney, however, has called on the U.S. and its partners to "arm the opposition so they can defend themselves." But he has offered little sense of what he would do if the ensuing battles didn't push Assad from power or, if they did, what type of political transition he would support.” [Associated Press, 5/31/12]Philadelphia Inquirer Editorial: “Republican Presidential Candidate Mitt Romney Said, ‘The United States Should Work With Partners To Organize And Arm Syrian Opposition Groups.’ But Which Groups Would That Be? The Factions Controlled By The Syrian Muslim Brotherhood And Linked To Al-Qaeda?” [Editorial, Philadelphia Inquirer, 5/30/12]REPUBLICANS AND DEFENSE OFFICIALS WARNED AGAINST ARMING THE OPPOSITION IN SYRIA DUE TO RISK WEAPONS COULD FALL INTO THE HANDS OF TERRORIST GROUPS LIKE AL-QAEDA Republican House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike RogersOpposed Arming Syrian Opposition Saying “We're Just Not Exactly Sure Who The Bad Guys Are And Who The Good Guys Are Right Now In Syria, So You Don't Know Who You're Giving Weapons To. We Know That Al Qaeda Has Been Attempting To Infiltrate.”? Asked for his strategy in Syria, Republican House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Rogers said: “I would be more aggressive with our Arab League partners. I'm not sure arming is the right answer here, mainly because we're just not exactly sure who the bad guys are and who the good guys are right now in Syria, so you don't know who you're giving weapons to. We know that Al Qaeda has been attempting to infiltrate and we've seen them do bombings in Damascus. So I think more concerted effort by taking standing shoulder to shoulder with the Arab League, who does want to do more in Syria is probably the best course of action.” [Starting Point, CNN, 5/30/12]Republican House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Rogers Said One-Quarter Of The Syria Opposition Groups Have Extremist Ties And Al-Qaida Is Present In The Country, Which Has Long-Standing Links To Hezbollah In Lebanon. “One-quarter of the Syrian opposition groups have extremist ties, and al-Qaida is present in the country, which has long-standing links to Hezbollah in Lebanon, [Republican House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike] Rogers said.” [National Journal, 7/17/12]Republican Senator Susan Collins Spoke Against Arming Syrian Opposition Groups As Some Reports Suggested They Had Ties To Al-Qaida Saying “We Could End Up Arming Terrorist Groups Or Other Enemies That Are Hostile To The United States Or To Israel Or To Other Allies In The Region.” “McCain along with Sens. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., and Joe Lieberman, I-Conn. also raised the possibility of arming the rebels. But Republican Sen. Susan Collins of Maine expressed reservations, citing Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton's recent comment that ‘if we arm, who are we arming?’ Some reports have suggested that al-Qaida is backing the Syrian opposition. ‘If the United States or another country or even an international coalition chose to arm opposition groups in Syria, what's your assessment of the risk that we might be taking that we could end up arming terrorist groups or other enemies that are hostile to the United States or to Israel or to other allies in the region?’ Collins asked.” [Associated Press, 3/8/12]Former Secretary of State James Baker On Arming The Syrian Opposition: “We Should Be Very Leery, Extremely Leery, About Being Drawn In To Any Kind Of A Military Confrontation Or Exercise... It’s Not Something We Have To Do.”? “Former Secretary of State James A. Baker III, who recently endorsed Mitt Romney and will be in Park City, Utah for his major donor retreat this weekend, took part in a panel with current Secretary of State Hillary Clinton yesterday… On whether to arm the opposition in Syria, which Romney supported in a recent statement: ‘I think we should continue to support a political transition in the government in Syria. But I don’t – but I think we ought to support it diplomatically, politically, and economically in every way that we can, but we should be very leery, extremely leery, about being drawn in to any kind of a military confrontation or exercise...Well, I say our allies in the region.? Yeah, they’re doing it.? And it’s not something we have to do.? I look at Syria and I think why are we not calling for something that we – this is – it may not be the right comparison, but in 1989, when we came into office, the wars in Central America were the holy grail of the left, political left in this country, and the holy grail of the political right in this country.? We said if we can take these wars out of domestic politics, we can cure the foreign policy problem, and we did.’"? [Politico, 6/22/12]Director of National Intelligence James Clapper Reported That Members of Al Qaeda May Have Infiltrated The Syrian Opposition. “Al Qaeda Members of al-Qaeda have infiltrated Syrian opposition groups, and likely executed?recent bombings?in the nation’s capital and largest city, the United States’ top intelligence official said Thursday. The remarks by Director of National Intelligence James R. Clapper are the most definitive to date from a senior Obama administration official on al-Qaeda’s efforts to insert itself into the Syrian uprising. Al-Qaeda extremists ‘have infiltrated’ opposition groups that ‘in many cases may not be aware they are there,’ Clapper said in testimony before the Senate Armed Services committee.” [Washington Post, 2/16/12]Chairman Of The Joint Chiefs of Staff, Martin Dempsey Warned That We “Need To Be Alert To Extremists” And Other Hostile Actors In Syria. “‘We also need to be alert to extremists,’ [chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Martin] Dempsey said, and other hostile actors, including Iran, which he said ‘has been exploiting the situation and expanding its support to the regime. And we need to be especially alert to the fate of Syria's chemical and biological weapons. They need to stay exactly where they are.’ Dempsey said the opposition numbers 100 groups. Syria also is far more diverse demographically, ethnically and religiously.” [Associated Press, 3/8/12]Andrew C. McCarthy: In Calling For Arming Opposition Groups In Syria, Romney “Managed To Align Himself With Al-Qaeda Emir Ayman Al-Zawahiri And Muslim Brotherhood Icon Yusuf Al-Qaradawi.” “Congratulations to Mitt Romney. In calling for ‘opposition groups’ to be armed and trained for their ongoing jihad against Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad, the GOP’s presidential contender has managed to align himself with al-Qaeda emir Ayman al-Zawahiri and Muslim Brotherhood icon Yusuf al-Qaradawi.” [Andrew C. McCarthy, National Review, 6/2/12]Andrew C. McCarthy: Romney Jumped “With Both Feet Into The Islamist Camp” And Attacked President Obama On Syria But “Romney Is Wrong.” “Yet, here comes Romney, jumping with both feet into the Islamist camp. This week, he slammed President Obama for purportedly failing to work with our two fabulous ‘allies,’ the Brotherhood-tied Islamist regime in Turkey and the jihad-propagating Wahabist regime in Saudi Arabia, in order to oust Assad. Obama’s temporizing, according to Romney, had ‘merely granted the Assad regime more time to execute its military onslaught.’ This is a specious critique. Put aside that Romney is wrong — the administration should stay on the sidelines. The reality is that Obama has been working behind the scenes with the Saudis and the Turks. The administration is supporting the Brotherhood-controlled SNC — just as it threw its weight behind Islamists in Egypt and Libya. What Obama has been smart enough to do, at least to this point, is refrain from direct military aid, undoubtedly realizing that he would be blamed when, inevitably, it became clear that American arms went to America’s enemies.” [Andrew C. McCarthy, National Review, 6/2/12] Leaks: Romney Defended The Commutation Of Scooter Libby & His Foreign Policy Advisor Was Implicated In The Valerie Plame LeakROMNEY DEFENDED THE COMMUTATION OF LIBBY’S SENTENCE AND LEFT THE DOOR OPEN TO PARDONING LIBBY IF ELECTED PRESIDENTBuzzfeed Headline: “Mitt Romney's 2007 Defense Of Scooter Libby Could Come Back To Haunt Him.” [Buzzfeed, 7/24/12]Buzzfeed: “Romney’s Past Defense Of Scooter Libby In The Valerie Plame Leak Case Shows He Hasn’t Always Taken A Hardline Against Suspected Leakers.” “Mitt Romney is planning to hammer President Obama for national security leaks in a major speech today. But Romney’s past defense of Scooter Libby in the Valerie Plame leak case shows he hasn’t always taken a hardline against suspected leakers. When asked if Libby should have been pardoned in two 2007 debates Romney said that judgement should be held until the judicial process is complete, and calling investigations into Libby a ‘political vendetta’ as well as ‘prosecutorial indiscretion.’” [Buzzfeed, 7/24/12]Buzzfeed Headline: “Romney Advisor Who Hit Obama On Leaks Was Involved In Scooter Libby Scandal.” [Buzzfeed, 7/24/12]July 2007: Romney “Called President Bush's Commutation Of Scooter Libby's Prison Sentence ‘Reasonable.’” “Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney, who as Massachusetts governor refused to pardon an Iraq war veteran's BB-gun conviction, on Tuesday called President Bush's commutation of Scooter Libby's prison sentence ‘reasonable.’ Defending Bush, Romney said at a campaign stop that ‘the president looked very carefully at the setting’ before deciding to commute the 2 1/2-year sentence of Libby, the former chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney, who was convicted in the CIA leak case. The prosecutor in the case ‘went after somebody even when he knew no crime had been committed,’ Romney said. ‘Given that fact, isn't it reasonable for a commutation of a portion of the sentence to be made?’” [Associated Press, 7/3/07]ROMNEY ADVISOR, ERIC EDELMAN, REPORTEDLY GAVE LIBBY THE IDEA OF LEAKING VALERIE PLAME’S IDENTITYBuzzfeed: Romney Campaign Released Statement On National Security Leaks Citing Romney Foreign Policy Adviser Eric Edelman, But Edelman “Was Implicated In The Country’s Last Major National Security Leak Investigation — The Outing Of CIA Agent Valeria Plame — During His Time In The Bush Administration.” “Mitt Romney’s campaign might have chosen the wrong ally to back up his attack today on President Obama for leaking national security secrets. Shortly after the candidate’s speech in Reno, Nevada, the Romney campaign sent out a press release citing former Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Eric Edelman, who is listed as an Romney campaign advisor.? ‘The suggestion by Senator Dianne Feinstein, chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, that the White House was behind recent leaks of highly classified secrets, highlights the urgent need for change.’ Edelman said in the statement, continuing the line of criticism. Edelman, however, was implicated in the country’s last major national security leak investigation — the outing of CIA agent Valeria Plame — during his time in the Bush administration. Edelman served under former Vice President Dick Cheney in the 1990s. From February 2001 to June 2003, he worked as Principal Deputy Assistant to the Vice President for National Security Affairs, were he served directly under former Cheney aide Scooter Libby. According to the Justice Department, Edelman, identified as ‘Principal Deputy’ in Scooter Libby’s indictment, originally suggested the idea to Libby to start leaking information about Joe Wilson’s trip to Niger.? The week after Edelman’s conversation with Libby, the Cheney aide infamously told New York Times reporter Judith Miller that Wilson’s wife might work for the CIA. Edelman ended his work in Cheney’s office under Libby in July of 2003 and was named the US Ambassador to Turkey. Cheney swore him into office.” [Buzzfeed, 7/24/12]Buzzfeed: “According To The Justice Department, Edelman, Identified As ‘Principal Deputy’ In Scooter Libby’s Indictment.” “According to the Justice Department, Edelman, identified as ‘Principal Deputy’ in Scooter Libby’s indictment, originally suggested the idea to Libby to start leaking information about Joe Wilson’s trip to Niger.? The week after Edelman’s conversation with Libby, the Cheney aide infamously told New York Times reporter Judith Miller that Wilson’s wife might work for the CIA. Edelman ended his work in Cheney’s office under Libby in July of 2003 and was named the US Ambassador to Turkey. Cheney swore him into office.” [Buzzfeed, 7/24/12]DEFICITSPRO-POTUSPresident Obama Has Already Signed $1 Trillion In Deficit Reduction Into Law And Has A Balanced Deficit Reduction PlanPRESIDENT OBAMA HAS ALREADY SIGNED $1 TRILLION IN DEFICIT REDUCTION INTO LAW AND HAS A BALANCED PLAN TO REDUCE THE DEFICIT BY MORE THAN $4 TRILLION OVER THE NEXT DECADECenter On Budget And Policy Priorities: The President Signed The Budget Control Act, Which Included More Than $1 Trillion In Deficit Reduction And Will Cut Non-Defense Discretionary Spending To Its Lowest Level As A Share Of The Economy Since 1962. “Two-fifths of the $1.5 trillion in savings from cutting and capping funding for discretionary programs comes from defense, while the other three-fifths comes from reductions in domestic and international programs.? These reductions will shrink non-defense discretionary spending to its lowest level on record as a share of GDP, with data going back to 1962. The $1.5 trillion in reductions in discretionary spending also will produce lower interest payments on the debt.? The interest savings amount to about $250 billion, bringing the total deficit reduction achieved to date to more than $1.7 trillion.” [Center On Budget And Policy Priorities, 9/25/12]Center On Budget And Policy Priorities: President Obama’s Budget Would Stabilize The Debt Over The Coming Decade Through “A Balanced Combination Of Spending Cuts And Revenue Increases.”? “If Congress enacted the Obama budget in full?and?its economic assumptions proved correct, the debt would stabilize over the coming decade although, as the White House acknowledges, policymakers would have to subsequently enact significant further deficit reduction to keep the debt stable in future decades. The budget either achieves or approaches this key fiscal target for the coming decade with several trillion dollars in deficit reduction, through a balanced combination of spending cuts and revenue increases.” [Center On Budget And Policy Priorities, 2/16/12]The President’s Budget, Which Incorporates Deficit Reduction Enacted In 2011, Would Cut The Deficit By More Than $4 Trillion Over The Next Decade. “That is why in this Budget, the President again has put forward a plan that will, together with the deficit reduction enacted last year, cut the deficit by more than $4 trillion over the next decade. This would put our Nation on the right course toward a level of deficits of below 3 percent of GDP by the end of the decade.” [White House Office Of Management And Budget, February 2012]Congressional Budget Office: “Under [The Alternative Fiscal] Scenario, Budget Deficits Would Total $10.7 Trillion Over The 2013–2022 Period.” [Congressional Budget Office, March 2012]The Congressional Budget Office Estimated That The Under The President’s FY2013 Budget, Deficits Would Total $6.39 Trillion Over The 2013-2022 Period.[“An Analysis Of The President’s 2013 Budget,” Congressional Budget Office, Table 3, March 2012]For Every $1 In New Revenue, The President’s Budget Has $2.50 In Spending Cuts Including The Deficit Reduction Enacted Last Year. “For every $1 in new revenue from those making more than $250,000 per year and from closing corporate loopholes, the Budget has $2.50 in spending cuts including the deficit reduction enacted over the last year.” [White House Blog Post, Jeff Zients, 2/13/12]President Obama Proposed Eliminating Special Tax Breaks And Loopholes For Oil And Gas Companies And The Very Wealthy As Well As Ending The Bush Tax Cuts For Families Making More Than $250,000 A Year. “In the Budget, I reiterate my opposition to permanently extending the Bush tax cuts for families making more than $250,000 a year and my opposition to a more generous estate tax than we had in 2009 benefiting only the very largest estates. These policies were unfair and unaffordable when they were passed, and they remain so today. I will push for their expiration in the coming year. I also propose to eliminate special tax breaks for oil and gas companies; preferred treatment for the purchase of corporate jets; tax rules that give a larger percentage deduction to the wealthiest two percent than to middle-class families for itemized deductions; and a loophole that allows some of the wealthiest money managers in the country to pay only 15 percent tax on the millions of dollars they earn. And I support tax reform that observes the “Buffett Rule” that no household making more than $1 million annually should pay a smaller share of its income taxes than middle-class families pay.” [FY2013 Budget Message Of The President, February 2012]The President’s FY2013 Budget Calls For Investment In Infrastructure, Education, And Manufacturing Research While Keeping Discretionary Spending Flat. “President Obama will call for new spending on infrastructure, education and manufacturing research, as well as higher taxes on top earners… Officials said the budget would abide by spending caps set by Congress in the August budget deal, keeping discretionary spending levels essentially flat in fiscal 2013. Over the decade, discretionary spending would drop from 8.7% of gross domestic product to 5%, officials said.” [Los Angeles Times, 2/10/12]President Obama Entered Office Facing A Trillion Dollar Deficit And Massive DebtACCORDING TO TREASURY ANALYSIS BASED ON CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE DATA, ABOUT 90 PERCENT THE SHIFT FROM SURPLUSES TO DEFICITS BETWEEN 2001 AND 2011 IS ATTRIBUTABLE BUSH ADMINISTRATION POLICIES AND THE EFFECTS OF THE RECESSIONFifty Nine Percent Of The Shift From Surplus To Deficit By 2011 Is Directly Attributable To Bush Administration Policies And Twenty Nine Is Due To Updated Economic And Demographic Shifts, While Only 12 Percent Is Attributable To Obama Administration Policies.?According to the Department of Treasury, in January 2001, CBO projected cumulative surpluses would total $5.9 trillion through 2011. Instead, cumulative deficits have totaled $6 trillion. A U.S. treasury analysis based on CBO data shows that fifty-nine percent of the shift from surpluses to deficits is attributable to Bush administration policies including Bush-era tax cuts, the wars in Iran and Afghanistan, changes to Medicare Part D, and other spending. Twenty nine percent of the shift from surpluses to deficits is attributable to conditions unrelated to legislation, including updated economic and demographic projections. Twelve percent is attributable to Obama administration policies, including the Recovery Act, the December 2010 tax law, and other spending and tax cuts. [U.S. Department Of Treasury Calculations Based On Congressional Budget Office Data, U.S. Department Of Treasury,?2/19/12]In January 2001, The Congressional Budget Office Projected Cumulative Surpluses Would Total $5.6 Trillion Through 2011, But Instead, Cumulative Deficits Have Totaled $6 Trillion—A Difference Of Approximately $11.9 Trillion. [U.S. Department Of Treasury Calculations Based On Congressional Budget Office Data, U.S. Department Of Treasury,?2/19/12]Bush Administration Policies Contributed $7 Trillion To The Shift From Surpluses To Deficits Between January 2001 And August 2011. According to the Department of Treasury, tax cuts signed into law under President George W. Bush added $3 trillion, wars in Iraq and Afghanistan added $1.4 trillion, Medicare Part D added $300 billion, and other spending added $2.3 trillion. [U.S. Department Of Treasury Calculations Based On Congressional Budget Office Data, U.S. Department Of Treasury,?2/19/12]Obama Administration Policies Contributed $1.4 Trillion To The Shift From Surpluses To Deficits Between January 2001 And August 2011. According to the Department Of Treasury, the Recovery Act added $800 billion, the December 2010 tax law added $250 billion, and other spending and tax cuts added $410 billion. Note that these totals only reflect effects of policies, including temporary policies, through 2011. They do not reflect deficit reduction proposed in the President’s FY2013 budget going forward. [U.S. Department Of Treasury Calculations Based On Congressional Budget Office Data, U.S. Department Of Treasury,?2/19/12]Changes In Economic And Demographic Projections Not Due To Legislation Contributed $3.45 Trillion To The Shift From Surpluses To Deficits Between January 2001 And August 2011. According to the Department Of Treasury, factors that the Congressional Budget Office terms “technical” and “economic,” including all changes not due to the cost of new legislation, including updates to economic and demographic projects, contributed 29 percent, or $3.45 trillion, of the shift from surpluses to deficits between January 2001 and August 2011.” [U.S. Department Of Treasury Calculations Based On Congressional Budget Office Data, U.S. Department Of Treasury,?2/19/12]BUSH TAX CUTS, WAR SPENDING AND THE EFFECTS OF THE RECESSION EXPLAIN MOST OF THE DEFICITS OVER THE NEXT TEN YEARSCenter On Budget And Policy Priorities: “The Economic Downturn, President Bush’s Tax Cuts And The Wars In Afghanistan And Iraq Explain Most Of The Deficit Over The Next Ten Years.” “Some lawmakers, pundits, and others continue to say that President George W. Bush’s policies did not drive the projected federal deficits of the coming decade — that, instead, it was the policies of President Obama and Congress in 2009 and 2010.? But, the fact remains: ?the economic downturn, President Bush’s tax cuts and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq explain most of the deficit over the next ten years — according to this update of our analysis, which is based on the Congressional Budget Office’s most recent ten-year budget projections (from August) and congressional action since we released the previous version of this analysis in May 2011.“ [Center On Budget And Policy Priorities, 10/10/12]Washington Post Wonkblog: It Is “Misleading” To Imply That President Obama’s Policies Are Primarily Responsible For The Debt, Since The Vast Majority Of The Debt Was Due To The Bush Tax Cuts Or The Iraq War. “’President Obama has added more debt than any other president before him,’ Ryan stated. As Ezra has?explained, the vast majority of this debt was due either to the Bush tax cuts or the Iraq war, and only a tiny sliver due to the stimulus and other recovery measures. It is misleading to imply that Obama’s policies are primarily responsible for the size of the deficit.” [Washington Post Wonkblog, 8/30/12]Washington Post Wonkblog: “Only A Tiny Sliver” Of The National Debt Is Due To The Stimulus And Other Recovery Measures. “The vast majority of this debt was due either to the Bush tax cuts or the Iraq war, and only a tiny sliver due to the stimulus and other recovery measures.” [Washington Post, WonkBlog, 8/30/12]THE PRESIDENT ENTERED OFFICE FACING A PROJECTED $1.2 TRILLION DEFICIT, THE LARGEST ON RECORD IN RAW DOLLARSIn January 2009, The Congressional Budget Office Projected A Nearly $1.2 Trillion Deficit For 2009 And Deficits In Subsequent Years. In its January 2009 Budget and Economic Outlook, the Congressional Budget Officeprojected a $1.186 trillion deficit for 2009 and deficits in subsequent years. [Congressional Budget Office, Table 4, January 2009]White House Office Of Management And Budget Historical Tables Show That The Deficit Had Not Exceeded $1 Trillion Prior To 2009. [White House Office Of Management And Budget, Table 1.1, accessed 9/20/12]Republican Obstructionism Impeded Compromise On Deficit ReductionPRESIDENT OBAMA PRESENTED A GRAND BARGAIN ON DEFICIT REDUCTION, BUT REPUBLICANS’?NO-TAX PLEDGE IMPEDED COMPROMISE President Obama Presented A “Grand Bargain Of Perhaps $4 Trillion In Deficit Reduction” To Republican Leaders, Who Walked Away From Negotiations. “House Speaker John Boehner has walked away from negotiations with President Obama over a deal to raise the debt limit. Boehner and the president have been seeking a "grand bargain" of perhaps $4 trillion in deficit reduction, but have faced stiff resistance from lawmakers in both parties. Most Republicans say they will not accept revenue increases in the deal, while most Democrats say any deal must include revenue increases as well as spending cuts.” [CBS News, 7/22/11]House Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy Said The Bigger Deficit Reduction Deal Failed Because Democrats Wanted To Include Tax Increases And “There Are No Votes On The Republican Side” For That.“Top House leaders sparred Sunday over the future of the debt ceiling talks.Appearing on CNN’s ‘State of the Union,’ House Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) said the bigger deficit-reduction deal failed because Democrats wanted to include tax increases in the package and there are ‘there are no votes on the Republican side’ for that.‘In principle, no, we’re not going to go there,’ he said.” [Politico, 7/10/2011]Republican Presidential Candidates Refused To Accept A 10 To 1 Ratio Of Spending Cuts To Tax Increases. A transcript from an August 2011 Republican primary debate in Iowa read,“BAIER: Say you had a deal. A real spending cuts deal. 10 to 1 as Byron said, spending cuts to tax increases. Speaker you’re already shaking your head. But who on this stage would walk away from that deal? Will you raise your hand if you feel so strongly about not raising taxes you’d walk away on the 10 to 1 deal. (All candidates raise their hands).” [Republican Primary Debate In Iowa, 8/11/2011]Washington Monthly’s Political Animal Blog Headline: “Ten-To-One Isn’t Good Enough For The GOP.” [Washington Monthly, Political Animal Blog, 8/12/2011]Three-Quarters Of Americans — Including More Than Half Of Republicans — Said They Believe That Any Deficit Reduction Plan Should Include Tax Increases. “Three-quarters of Americans — including more than half of Republicans — say they believe that any deficit reduction plan should include tax increases, according to a recent?New York Times/CBS poll. But Congressional Republicans are not so sure.” [New York Times, 11/18/2011]SEN. MCCONNELL SAID DEFEATING PRESIDENT OBAMA WAS THE MOST IMPORTANT THING REPUBLICANS WANT TO ACHIEVE, AND REPUBLICANS HAVE TAKEN?A “GO-SLOW APPROACH” ON LEGISLATION TO PREVENT THE PRESIDENT’S?RE-ELECTION Sen. Mitch McConnell Said “The Single Most Important Thing” For Republicans To Achieve In The Next Congress Was Ensuring President Obama Was A One-Term President. “Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell came under sharp attack from the White House and Democrats Tuesday for saying that his top priority in the next Congress is to ensure that President Barack Obama serves only one term. The Kentucky Republican made the statement during an interview with National Journal. But it's a variation on a line he has been using as he has stumped the country on behalf of Republican candidates in advance of the Nov. 2 midterm election. ‘The?single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president,’ he said in the interview.” [Louisville Courier-Journal, 10/26/10]Asked If He Still Believed Defeating President Obama In 2012 Is The “Most Important Thing” Republicans Want To Achieve, Sen. McConnell Said “Of Course.” “BAIER: In the final days before the vote, Democrats use this quote from you numerous times. You told the "National Journal," quote, "The?single?most?important thing?we want to?achieve?is for?President Obama?to be a?one-term president." Do you still believe that today? MCCONNELL: Of course. I mean, I'm the Republican leader of the Senate. I want to have a Republican?president?after 2012.” [Sen. Mitch McConnell Interview, Fox News, 11/3/2010]New York Times: Before President Obama Even Took Office, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell Devised A Strategy To Deny Democrats Any Republican Support On Major Legislation. “Before the health care fight, before the economic?stimulus package, before?President Obama?even took office, Senator?Mitch McConnell, the Republican minority leader, had a strategy for his party: use his extensive knowledge of Senate procedure to slow things down, take advantage of the difficulties Democrats would have in governing and deny Democrats any Republican support on big legislation. Republicans embraced it. Democrats denounced it as rank obstructionism. Either way, it has led the two parties, as much as any other factor, to where they are right now.” [NYT, 3/16/10]Wall Street Journal Headline: “Republicans See Advantages In Go-Slow Approach On Bills” [Wall Street Journal, 6/13/12]Republican Rep. Scott Garrett Argued That There Wasn’t An “Upside” But Rather It Would “Tie Romney’s Hands” If They Passed Needed Legislation Before The Election. “Rep. Peter King (R., N.Y.) agreed that Republican prospects are improving, but he said there should be no foot-dragging on needed legislation. ‘We've got to keep working,’ he said. ‘We can't coast.’ But some Republicans say they are wary of cutting deals that would curb the options of more-conservative leadership that could be in place next year. ‘Where is the upside?’ said Rep. Scott Garrett (R., N.J.), a senior member of the House Budget Committee. ‘You tie Romney's hands. If we get a good majority in the Senate and win the White House, we will be on a very strong platform to do the things we need to do.’” [Wall Street Journal, 6/13/12]President Obama’s Budget Would Cut The Deficit In HalfTHE PRESIDENT’S FY2013 BUDGET WOULD CUT YEARLY DEFICITS IN HALF BY 2014According To Congressional Budget Office Data, The President’s FY2013 Budget Would Cut Yearly Deficits In Half By 2014. According to Congressional Budget Office data, the deficit for 2009 was $1.413 trillion, and the projected deficit for 2014 under the President’s FY2013 budget would be $702 billion. [Congressional Budget Office Historical Budget Data, Table E-11, January 2011; Congressional Budget Office Analysis Of The President’s FY2013 Budget, Table 1, March 2012]The President’s Budget Would Cut Yearly Deficits By $550 Billion In The Next Two Years. The President’s budget projects a $1.211 trillion deficit for 2012 and a $661 billion deficit for 2014, a decrease of $550 billion over the two year period. Mid-Session Review, Table S-5, July 2012]Contrary To Romney’s Claims, President Obama Has Not Doubled The DeficitFACT CHECKERS HAVE DEBUNKED ROMNEY’S CLAIM THAT PRESIDENT OBAMA DOUBLED THE DEFICIT, CALLING THE CLAIM “FALSE” AND “UNTRUE”PolitiFact: Under President Obama The Deficit has Gone Down By About Eight Percent. “That figure doesn’t account for any of Obama’s own spending initiatives, such as the stimulus bill. But the deficit grew quickly under Obama: The fiscal 2009 deficit rose to $1.41 trillion and has remained above $1 trillion annually ever since. But compared to what Obama inherited, the annual deficit has gone down slightly. CBO projects that for fiscal 2012, which has just ended, the fiscal 2012 deficit will be $1.09 trillion. So, far from doubling the deficit, Obama (along with, it should be noted, some Republican help in Congress) has instead reduced the deficit by about 8 percent.” [PolitiFact, 10/5/12]The Romney Campaign Uses A Misleading Starting Point, Comparing The Current Deficit To The Final Fiscal 2008 Deficit. “The only way to get to doubling is to use a different starting point, which is what the Romney campaign does. His campaign compares the current deficit to the final fiscal 2008 deficit of $458.6 billion. But we don't find that to be the correct starting point.” [PolitiFact, 10/5/12]PolitiFact Rated Romney’s Claim That President Obama Doubled The Deficit “False” Noting That Under The President, Deficits Have Actually Gone Down. “Romney said that Obama has "doubled" the deficit. In reality, using the most appropriate comparison, he and Congress have actually decreased the deficit slightly. We rate Romney’s statement False.” [PolitiFact, 10/5/12]New York Times: It Is “Not True” That President Obama Doubled The Deficit—Instead, The Deficit has Declined From 10.1 Percent Of Economic Output To 7.3 Percent For 2012. “Mr. Romney said Mr. Obama had doubled the deficit. That is not true. When Mr. Obama took office in January 2009, the Congressional Budget Office had already projected that the deficit for fiscal year 2009, which ended Sept. 30 of that year, would be $1.2 trillion. (It ended up as $1.4 trillion.) For fiscal year 2012, which ended last week, the deficit is expected to be $1.1 trillion — just under the level in the year he was inaugurated. Measured as a share of the economy, as economists prefer, the deficit has declined more significantly — from 10.1 percent of the economy’s total output in 2009 to 7.3 percent for 2012.” [New York Times, 10/4/12]Pushback: Added $5 Trillion To The DebtROMNEY’S ATTACKS IGNORE KEY DRIVERS OF THE DEBT THAT PREDATE PRESIDENT OBAMAAssociated Press: Romney Stated That The President Has Increased The Debt By $5 Trillion, But Ignores That “Much Of The Increase In The Debt Is Due To Lower Tax Revenues From Depressed Corporate And Individual Incomes And High Joblessness In The Worst Recession Since The Great Depression.” “ROMNEY: ‘The people of Iowa and America have watched President Obama for nearly four years… When you add up his policies, this president has increased the national debt by $5 trillion.’ THE FACTS: Much of the increase in the debt is due to lower tax revenues from depressed corporate and individual incomes and high joblessness in the worst recession since the Great Depression. The recession officially began in December 2007, when George W. Bush was president and the national debt stood at just over $9 trillion. Financial bailouts, stimulus programs and auto rescue spending begun under Bush and continued under Obama contributed to the run-up of the debt. But so did the Bush-era tax cuts enacted in 2001 and 2003. With bipartisan support, Congress has extended the tax cuts until the end of this year, and Romney’s proposals for big cuts of his own would risk another squeeze on revenue.” [Associated Press, 5/15/12]Washington Post Wonkblog: It Is “Misleading” To Imply That President Obama’s Policies Are Primarily Responsible For The Debt, Since The Vast Majority Of The Debt Was Due To The Bush Tax Cuts Or The Iraq War. “’President Obama has added more debt than any other president before him,’ Ryan stated. As Ezra has?explained, the vast majority of this debt was due either to the Bush tax cuts or the Iraq war, and only a tiny sliver due to the stimulus and other recovery measures. It is misleading to imply that Obama’s policies are primarily responsible for the size of the deficit.” [Washington Post Wonkblog, 8/30/12]Pushback: Added More Debt Than All Other Presidents CombinedINDEPENDENT FACT CHECKERS SAY THE CLAIM THAT DEBT HAS INCREASED MORE UNDER PRESIDENT OBAMA THAN UNDER ALL PAST PRESIDENT COMBINED IS UNTRUE, AND PRESIDENT OBAMA’S BUDGET WOULD STABILIZE THE DEBT Associated Press: The Claim That Debt Has Increased More Under President Obama Than Under All Previous Presidents Combined Is False. “Presidents from George Washington through George W. Bush ran the national debt up to $10.62 trillion, the amount it was on the day Obama took office. Today, it is $15.67 trillion, according to the Treasury Department's Bureau of Public Debt. So it has gone up by $5.05 trillion under Obama. That's roughly half of the amount amassed by all the other presidents combined. In short, the debt has gone up by about half under Obama. Under Ronald Reagan, it tripled.” [Associated Press, 5/15/12]: It’s “Untrue” That The Debt Has Increased More Under President Obama Than Under All Previous Presidents Combined. “And it’s also untrue — as claimed in a graphic widely circulated by email and in social media postings — that the debt has increased more under Obama than under all previous 43 presidents combined.” [ , 2/2/2012]Center On Budget And Policy Priorities: President Obama’s Budget Would Stabilize The Debt Over The Coming Decade Through “A Balanced Combination Of Spending Cuts And Revenue Increases.”? “If Congress enacted the Obama budget in full?and?its economic assumptions proved correct, the debt would stabilize over the coming decade although, as the White House acknowledges, policymakers would have to subsequently enact significant further deficit reduction to keep the debt stable in future decades. The budget either achieves or approaches this key fiscal target for the coming decade with several trillion dollars in deficit reduction, through a balanced combination of spending cuts and revenue increases.” [Center On Budget And Policy Priorities, 2/16/12]Pushback: SequesterTHE SEQUESTER WAS APPROVED ON A BIPARTISAN VOTE, AND PRESIDENT OBAMA HAS CALLED ON CONGRESS TO OVERTURN AUTOMATIC SPENDING CUTS AND PROVIDED A PLAN THAT WOULD AVOID THE SEQUESTERTHE BUDGET CONTROL ACT PASSED CONGRESS ON A BIPARTISAN VOTEThe Budget Control Act Of 2011 Passed The Senate On A Vote Of 74-26 With 28 GOP Senators Voting In Favor. [Vote 123, 8/2/11]The House Of Representatives?Passed The Budget Control Act Of 2011 By A Vote Of 269-161, With 174 House Republicans Supporting. [Vote 690, 8/1/11]Washington Post: Most Republicans In The?House And?Senate, Voted For The Cuts In Question.” “In his speech tonight, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ)?decried?Obama for cutting defense, saying,?‘We can’t afford another $500 billion in cuts to our defense budget — on top of the nearly $500 billion in cuts that the president is already making…And yet, the president is playing no leadership role in preventing this crippling blow to our military.’ There’s just one problem: John McCain, and most other Republicans in the?House and?Senate, voted for the cuts in question.” [Washington Post, 8/29/12]PRESIDENT OBAMA HAS CALLED ON CONGRESS TO OVERTURN AUTOMATIC SPENDING CUTS AND PROVIDED A PLAN THAT WOULD AVOID THE SEQUESTERPresident Obama “Made Clear That Congress Can And Must Act To Avoid The Sweeping Impacts Of The Sequester” And Provided Multiple Blueprints For Balanced Deficit Reduction To Avoid The Sequester. “The President has made clear that the Congress can and must act to avoid the sweeping impacts of the sequester by passing a balanced deficit reduction package. Last fall, the Administration provided a blueprint for the Congress to do so. And in his 2013 Budget, the President proposed a comprehensive balanced deficit reduction package that would ensure the Nation lives within its means and, including legislation signed into law last year, reduces the deficit by $4 trillion while supporting job creation and long-term economic growth. This package would achieve more than enough deficit reduction to avoid the sequester.” [Statement Of Administration Policy On H.R. 5652, Sequester Replacement Reconciliation Act Of 2012, 5/9/12]Washington Post Wonkblog: Contrary To Ryan’s Claims, The President Proposed A Budget That Would Avoid The Sequester, But Congress “Kept It From Going Anywhere.” “But Ryan is wrong in stating that Obama has no sequester replacement: ?In fact, the president has proposed a 2013 budget that avoids the sequester’s automatic cuts for all 10 years, while Ryan’s alternative would only?stop the cuts?for 2013…But Congress has kept it from going anywhere:?Both the House and Senate voted down Obama’s budget, but in the Senate, the?0-99 vote?was political theater: Republicans offered up the president’s budget without any of the actual policy language attached, so none of the specifics were actually up for a vote.” [Washington Post Wonkblog, 9/10/12]Washington Post Wonkblog: Only Congress, “One Body Of Which Is Controlled By Republicans And The Other Body Of Which Can’t Pass Laws Without Republican Support,” Can Avoid The Sequester. “The sequester is a blunt instrument, in that it does not make any attempt to differentiate between kinds of defense spending. It simply cuts everything by 10 percent across the board. But there’s a body that has the power to change the law and keep the laws from taking effect, namely Congress, one body of which is controlled by Republicans and the other body of which can’t pass laws without Republican support. So attacking Obama for taking “no?leadership role”?in reversing the cuts is a bit strange. He can’t reduce the cuts. Congress can.” [Washington Post, 8/29/12]President Obama’s Deficit Reduction Plan Is A Balanced Approach Like Simpson-BowlesPRESIDENT OBAMA HAS OUTLINED DEFICIT REDUCTION MEASURES SIMILAR TO THOSE THE COMMISSION PROPOSED, WITH A BALANCED COMBINATION OF SPENDING CUTS AND NEW REVENUESErskine Bowles On Deficit Reduction: “Of The Two Plans, The Only One That Is A Balanced Plan Is The One Presented By President Obama.” [Weekend Edition, NPR, 10/7/12]PolitiFact: President Obama Has “Outlined Deficit Reduction Measures Similar To Those Proposed By The Commission.” “PolitiFact New Jersey investigated whether Obama failed to ‘stand up for the bipartisan debt solutions of the Simpson-Bowles Commission,’ and found that Christie is not entirely right. The president did not fully embrace the commission’s recommendations at the outset, but Obama later outlined deficit reduction measures similar to those proposed by the commission. Even the commission’s co-chairs -- former White House chief of staff Erskine Bowles under President Bill Clinton, and former Republican U.S. Sen. Alan Simpson -- have said so. ‘We are encouraged that the President has embraced a balanced, comprehensive approach to deficit reduction similar to that outlined in the Fiscal Commission report,’ Bowles and Simpson said in an April 13 press release.” [PolitiFact, 9/29/2011]PolitiFact Rated The Claim “Barack Obama Failed To Stand Up For Proposed Solutions Of [The Simpson-Bowles] Deficit Reduction Commission” Mostly False. [PolitiFact, 9/29/11]Fiscal Commission Co-Chair Erskine Bowles: “I'm Confident That [President Obama] Supports Deficit Reduction That Is Generally In Line With The Recommendations Of The Bipartisan Debt Commission.” “After a long meeting with Mr. Obama earlier this month, I'm confident that he supports deficit reduction that is generally in line with the recommendations of the bipartisan debt commission. That does not mean that he supports every single thing we recommended, nor do I or any other commissioner who voted yes on the report we issued. But it was apparent to me that the president does support the general framework of the ‘Simpson-Bowles Plan,’ and he is willing to do his part to put our fiscal house in order.” [Erskine Bowles Op-Ed, Wall Street Journal, 3/29/12]Center On Budget And Policy Priorities: President Obama’s Budget Would Stabilize The Debt Over The Coming Decade Through “A Balanced Combination Of Spending Cuts And Revenue Increases.”? “If Congress enacted the Obama budget in full?and?its economic assumptions proved correct, the debt would stabilize over the coming decade although, as the White House acknowledges, policymakers would have to subsequently enact significant further deficit reduction to keep the debt stable in future decades. The budget either achieves or approaches this key fiscal target for the coming decade with several trillion dollars in deficit reduction, through a balanced combination of spending cuts and revenue increases.” [Center On Budget And Policy Priorities, 2/16/12]President Obama Would Protect Medicare And Social Security For SeniorsPRESIDENT OBAMA’S PLAN WOULD ENSURE THAT WE’RE STILL PROVIDING SECURITY FOR SENIORS WHEN IT COMES TO MEDICARE AND SOCIAL SECURITYTHE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT EXTENDS THE SOLVENCY OF MEDICARE TO 2024 WHILE STRENGTHENING BENEFITS AND REDUCING COSTS FOR BENEFICIARIES AARP:? The Affordable Care Act “Protects And Strengthens Guaranteed Benefits In Medicare.”? “The legislative package [the Affordable Care Act] cracks down on insurance company abuses and protects and strengthens guaranteed benefits in Medicare, the program millions of our members depend on and in which millions more will soon enroll. It closes the dreaded Medicare Part D ‘doughnut hole,’ a gap in prescription drug coverage that is life-threatening for many. … And it improves efforts to crack down on fraud and waste in Medicare, strengthening the program for today’s seniors and future generations.” [AARP Press Release, 3/10/12]The Affordable Care Act Extends The Solvency Of Medicare Part A To 2024, Eight Years Longer Than Without Health Care Reform. “The Medicare Trustees Report released today shows that the Hospital Insurance (HI) Trust Fund is expected to remain solvent until 2024, the same as last year’s estimate, but action is needed to secure its long-term future.? In 2011, the HI Trust Fund expenditures were lower than expected. Without the Affordable Care Act, the HI Trust Fund would expire 8 years earlier, in 2016. ”[Center For Medicare & Medicaid Services, 04/23/12]New York Times Editorial Board: “The Affordable Care Act Helped Push Back The Insolvency Date By Eight Years, So Repealing The Act Would Actually Bring The Trust Fund Closer To Insolvency.” [Editorial, New York Times, 8/18/12]The Affordable Care Act Closes The Prescription Drug Coverage Gap—The “Doughnut Hole”—In Medicare Part D By 2020. “The Affordable Care Act includes benefits to make your Medicare prescription drug coverage (Part D) more affordable. It does this by gradually closing the gap in drug coverage known as the ‘Donut Hole.’...the gap is closed in 2020.” [, 08/03/11]Because Of the Affordable Care Act, More Than 5.5 Million Seniors And People With Disabilities Have Saved Over $4.5 Billion On Prescription Drug Costs Since The Law Was Enacted. “HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius also announced that, because of the health care law, more than 5.5 million seniors and people with disabilities saved nearly $4.5 billion on prescription drugs since the law was enacted.” ?[Department of Health and Human Services, Press Release, 9/21/12]In The First 8 Months Of 2012 Alone, Medicare Beneficiaries In The Doughnut Hole Saved On Average Over $641 On Their Prescription Drugs. “Seniors in the Medicare prescription drug coverage gap known as the donut hole have saved an average of $641 in the first eight months of 2012 alone.”?[Department of Health and Human Services, Press Release, 9/21/12]THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION HAS HELPED STRENGTHEN SOCIAL SECURITY AND INCREASE BENEFITS FOR SENIORSThe Obama Administration Pushed Congress To Provide $13 Billion In One-Time Checks To 57 Million Social Security Recipients During The Recession. “President Obama urged Congress on Wednesday to authorize a second $250 stimulus check to be sent early next year to an estimated 57 million Social Security recipients, veterans and people with disabilities. … White House officials put the cost of the checks at $13 billion. The first $250 checks went out in May as part of the $787 billion two-year stimulus package. As with that package, the officials said Mr. Obama would not ask Congress to offset the cost with other savings because the checks were intended to stimulate the economy, and budget cuts or tax increases would defeat that. [New York Times, 10/14/09]The Recovery Act Included $500 Million To Help The Social Security Administration Address Increasing Numbers Of Disability And Retirement Claims, With The Goal Of Serving Seniors Faster And More Efficiently. [SSA Administration Agency Wide Recovery Act Plan, accessed 8/16/12]The Recovery Act Included $500 Million To Upgrade The Social Security Administration’s National Support Center, Which Stores Information Essential To Ensuring Seniors Receive The Benefits They Deserve. [SSA Administration Agency Wide Recovery Act Plan, accessed 8/16/12]President Obama Continues To Push For Another $250 Economic Recovery Payment For Retirees. “In light of continued economic hardship for too many seniors, the President has called for Congress to enact another $250 Economic Recovery Payment to our seniors this year, as well as to veterans and people with disabilities.” [White House, Accessed 8/11/12]Obama Administration Increased Benefits For Social Security Beneficiaries for 2012. “Monthly Social Security and Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits for more than 60 million Americans will increase 3.6 percent in 2012, the Social Security Administration announced today.” [Social Security Administration, 10/19/11]Health Care Reform’s Provision On High-Cost “Cadillac” Benefit Plans Is Expected To Ease Social Security Deficits. “In 2018, when the new health care law calls for taxes on ‘Cadillac’ insurance plans, employers are expected to reduce those high-cost health benefits in favor of paying higher wages. The anticipated payroll taxes on that extra income is expected to ease Social Security deficits.” [AARP, 08/05/2010]THE CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE ESTIMATES THAT THE SOCIAL SECURITY TRUST FUND WILL BE ABLE TO PAY OUT FULL BENEFITS UNTIL 2038The OASI Trust Fund Will Be Able To Pay Out Full Benefits Until 2038. “CBO projects that under current law, the DI trust fund will be exhausted in fiscal year 2016 and the OASI trust fund will be exhausted in 2038. If a trust fund’s balance falls to zero and current revenues are insufficient to cover the benefits that are specified in law, the Social Security Administration does not have legal authority to pay full benefits when they are due.” [Congressional Budget Office, 10/2/12]Resources Available To The Social Security Fund Will Be Sufficient For Roughly The Next 20 Years. “Over the next 10 years, outlays will exceed dedicated tax revenues by about 10 percent, on average. That gap will grow larger in the 2020s, and by 2030, Social Security outlays will be about 6 percent of gross domestic product and will exceed dedicated tax revenues by about 20 percent. As a result, under current law, resources available to the Social Security program will become insufficient to pay full benefits in about 20 years, CBO projects.”?[Congressional Budget Office, Blog, 10/2/12]PRESIDENT OBAMA HAS EMPHASIZED THE IMPORTANCE OF SOCIAL SECURITY FOR ALL AMERICANS President Obama: We Have To Keep The Promise “To Safeguard Social Security For Our Seniors, People With Disabilities, And All Americans Today, Tomorrow, And Forever.” “We have an obligation to keep that promise; to safeguard Social Security for our seniors, people with disabilities, and all Americans -- today, tomorrow, and forever.” [Remarks by the President at a Weekly Address, 8/14/10]President Obama Is Committed To Protecting And Strengthening Social Security. “President Obama is committed to protecting and strengthening Social Security. That’s why he pushed Congress to find a bipartisan compromise ensuring America meet its financial obligations – including Social Security checks to seniors – and has called on Congress to work on a bipartisan basis to strengthen Social Security.” [White House, Accessed 8/12/12]PRESIDENT OBAMA OUTLINED SIX PRINCIPLES FOR SOCIAL SECURITY REFORM AND HAS CALLED FOR A BIPARTISAN SOLUTION TO STRENGTHEN SOCIAL SECURITYPresident Obama Outlined Six Principles For Social Security Reform, Including Opposing Any Efforts To Privatize Or Weaken Social Security, To Slash Benefits For Future Generations, Or To Reduce Basic Benefits For Current Recipients.? “The President is committed to making sure that Social Security is solvent and viable for the American people, now and in the future. He is strongly opposed to privatizing Social Security and looks forward to working in a bipartisan way to strengthen Social Security for years to come. Guiding the Administration in these talks will be the President’s six principles for reform: any reform should strengthen Social Security for future generations and restore long-term solvency; the Administration will oppose any measures to privatize or weaken the Social Security system; while all measures to strengthen solvency should be on the table, the Administration will not accept an approach that slashes benefits for future generations; no current beneficiaries should see their basic benefits reduced; reform should strengthen retirement security for the most vulnerable, including low-income seniors; reform should maintain robust disability and survivors’ benefits.” [White House Fact Sheet, February 2012]President Obama: We Need To “Find A Bipartisan Solution To Strengthen Social Security For Future Generations.” "To put us on solid ground, we should also find a bipartisan solution to strengthen Social Security for future generations. We must do it without putting at risk current retirees, the most vulnerable, or people with disabilities; without slashing benefits for future generations; and without subjecting Americans’ guaranteed retirement income to the whims of the stock market." [Remarks by the President at the State Of The Union, 01/25/11]Under President Obama, Federal Spending Has SlowedPRESIDENT OBAMA HAS PRESIDED OVER THE SLOWEST GROWTH IN SPENDING SINCE PRESIDENT EISENHOWER WAS IN OFFICE, AND HAS TAKEN ACTION TO CUT GOVERNMENT SPENDINGPRESIDENT OBAMA HAS PRESIDED OVER THE SLOWEST GROWTH IN SPENDING SINCE PRESIDENT EISENHOWER WAS IN OFFICETampa Bay Times Politifact: President Obama Has Presided Over The Second-Slowest Growth In Spending Of Any President Adjusted For Inflation. “The Facebook post says Mitt Romney is wrong to claim that spending under Obama has "accelerated at a pace without precedent in recent history," because it's actually risen ‘slower than at any time in nearly 60 years.’ Obama has indeed presided over the slowest growth in spending of any president using raw dollars, and it was the second-slowest if you adjust for inflation. The math simultaneously backs up Nutting’s calculations and demolishes Romney’s contention. The only significant shortcoming of the graphic is that it fails to note that some of the restraint in spending was fueled by demands from congressional Republicans. On balance, we rate the claim Mostly True.” [Tampa Bay Times, PolitiFact, 5/23/12]A PolitiFact Chart Showed That Adjusted For Inflation, President Eisenhower Had A -.5 Average Percentage Increase In Spending Growth Between The First And Last Fiscal Years Of His Presidency, The Slowest Of Any President. [Tampa Bay Times, PolitiFact, 5/23/12]THE PRESIDENT SIGNED THE BUDGET CONTROL ACT, WHICH WILL CUT NON-DEFENSE DISCRETIONARY SPENDING TO ITS LOWEST LEVEL AS A SHARE OF THE ECONOMY SINCE 1962Center On Budget And Policy Priorities: The President Signed The Budget Control Act, Which Will Cut Non-Defense Discretionary Spending To Its Lowest Level As A Share Of The Economy Since 1962. “Two-fifths of the $1.5 trillion in savings from cutting and capping funding for discretionary programs comes from defense, while the other three-fifths comes from reductions in domestic and international programs.? These reductions will shrink non-defense discretionary spending to its lowest level on record as a share of GDP, with data going back to 1962. The $1.5 trillion in reductions in discretionary spending also will produce lower interest payments on the debt.? The interest savings amount to about $250 billion, bringing the total deficit reduction achieved to date to more than $1.7 trillion.” [Center On Budget And Policy Priorities, 9/25/12]UNDER PRESIDENT OBAMA’S LEADERSHIP, DEFICITS HAVE BEGUN TO DECLINENew York Times:Under President Obama The Deficit has Declined From 10.1 Percent Of Economic Output To 7.3 Percent For 2012. “Mr. Romney said Mr. Obama had doubled the deficit. That is not true. When Mr. Obama took office in January 2009, the Congressional Budget Office had already projected that the deficit for fiscal year 2009, which ended Sept. 30 of that year, would be $1.2 trillion. (It ended up as $1.4 trillion.) For fiscal year 2012, which ended last week, the deficit is expected to be $1.1 trillion — just under the level in the year he was inaugurated. Measured as a share of the economy, as economists prefer, the deficit has declined more significantly — from 10.1 percent of the economy’s total output in 2009 to 7.3 percent for 2012.” [New York Times, 10/4/12]The Deficit Fell In Fiscal Year 2012 Compared To Fiscal Year 2011, By More Than Expected.“U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Deputy Director for Management Jeffrey Zients today released details of the final fiscal year (FY) 2012 budget results. The release shows the deficit in FY 2012 fell to $1.089 trillion, $207 billion less than the FY 2011 deficit and $238 billion less than forecast in President Obama’s February Budget. The Administration remains committed to enacting proposals to help create jobs and promote economic growth while adopting a balanced deficit reduction package that puts the budget on a sustainable path over the long term.” [Department Of Treasury Press Release, 12/12/12]President Obama Has Taken Action To Cut Government WastePRESIDENT OBAMA HAS PROPOSED STREAMLINING THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH AND CUT BILLIONS IN WASTEFUL SPENDING President Obama Called On Congress To Give Him Authority To Streamline The Executive Branch And Proposed Consolidating Six Overlapping Agencies. “President?Barack Obama?called on Congress to give him authority to streamline the executive branch and make it easier for businesses to tap government resources by consolidating six agencies dealing with trade and commerce. The reorganization would affect the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, the Export-Import Bank, the?Overseas Private Investment Corporation, the Trade and Development Agency and the?Small Business Administration. Obama said today that in the short term, he would elevate the SBA administrator to Cabinet-level status. ‘We live in a 21st-century economy, but we’ve still got a government organized for the 20th century,’ Obama said in remarks at the White House. ‘With this authority, we could help businesses grow, save businesses time and save taxpayer dollars.’” [Bloomberg, 1/13/12]The Obama Administration Cracked Down On Fraud And Error To Cut Improper Payments By $50 Billion By The End Of 2012. “As part of this effort to build a more accountable Government, the Administration already has moved to cut wasteful spending and programs that do not work, strengthen and streamline what does work, leverage technology to transform Government operations to save money and improve performance, and make Government more open and responsive to the needs of the American people. These reforms include cracking down on fraud and error to cut improper payments by $50 billion by the end of 2012.” [FY2013 Budget Of The U.S. Government, White House Office Of Management And Budget, February 2012]President Obama’s FY2012 Budget Proposed Nearly $25B In Discretionary Terminations, Reductions And Savings; Congress Cut $23B, Or 92 Percent, Of Those Requested Reductions. “In each of his three previous budgets, the President identified, on average, more than 150? terminations, reductions, and savings, totaling nearly $25 billion each year. The 2012 Budget proposed nearly $25 billion in discretionary terminations, reductions, and savings; Congress reduced these programs by $23 billion, 92 percent of the requested reduction. In the 2013 Budget, the Administration is proposing cuts, consolidations, and? savings across the Government totaling more than $24 billion in the upcoming? fiscal year, and $520 billion through 2022.” [Building A 21st Century Government By Reducing Duplication, Fragmentation And Waste, 2/28/12]PRESIDENT OBAMA ELIMINATED FEEDS PAID TO MIDDLEMEN IN COLLEGE LOANS, SAVING $68 BILLION AND RE-INVESTING IN PELL GRANTSStudent Loan Reform Eliminated $68 Billion Paid To Banks Acting As Intermediaries To Invest In Pell Grants. “The new law will eliminate fees paid to private banks to act as intermediaries in providing loans to college students and use much of the nearly $68 billion in savings over 11 years to expand Pell grants and make it easier for students to repay outstanding loans after graduating. The law also invests $2 billion in community colleges over the next four years to provide education and career training programs to workers eligible for trade adjustment aid after dislocation in their industries.” [New York Times, 3/30/10]PRESIDENT OBAMA CRACKED DOWN ON MEDICARE FRAUD, INCREASING PROSECUTIONS FOR FRAUD IN THE MEDICARE SYSTEM BY NEARLY 75 PERCENT, AND ELIMINATED $100 BILLION IN NEEDLESS SUBSIDIES TO INSURANCE COMPANIES IN MEDICARESecretary Sebelius: The Crackdown On Medicare Fraud And Abuse “Returned A Record $5.4 Billion To Medicare In 2010 And 2011.” “New crackdowns on fraud and abuse returned a record $5.4 billion to Medicare in 2010 and 2011.” [Sebelius Op-Ed, Washington Post, 07/09/12]The Number Of Individuals Charged With Fraud Increased From 797 In Fiscal Year 2008 To 1,430 In Fiscal 2011 – Nearly A 75 Percent Increase. “Today, the Obama administration also announced more progress from its anti-fraud efforts, beyond the nearly $4.1 billion recovered last year: […] Prosecutions are up:?the number of individuals charged with fraud increased from 797 in fiscal year 2008 to 1,430 in fiscal 2011 – nearly a 75 percent increase.” [Department Of Health And Human Services Press Release, 4/4/12]The Repeal Of Obamacare Would Increase Medicare Outlays By $156 Billion By Increasing Rates Paid Out To Medicare Advantage Plans. “Repeal of the new mechanism for setting payment rates in the Medicare Advantage program would increase Medicare outlays by $156 billion (before considering interactions with other provisions).” [CBO Letter to John Boehner, 7/24/12]New York Times Editorial Board: Savings Come From “Reducing Unjustifiably High Subsidies” To Private Insurance Companies. “One big chunk of money will be saved by reducing unjustifiably high subsidies to private Medicare Advantage plans that enroll many beneficiaries at a higher average cost than traditional Medicare.” [Editorial, New York Times, 8/18/12]Pushback: President Obama Added 145,000 People To The Federal WorkforceNATIONAL DEFENSE, ASSISTING VETERANS, AND PROTECTING THE NATIONAL BORDERS ACCOUNT FOR CLOSE TO 90 PERCENT OF ALL FEDERAL CIVILIAN EMPLOYEE GROWTHTampa Bay Times PolitiFact: “The Story Behind The Raw Number Is Considerably Different Than What Romney Suggested.” [PolitiFact, 1/9/2012]Washington Post?Fact Checker: Much Of The Increase In Federal Employment Is In Defense, Veterans Affairs, And Homeland Security, “Presumably…Not Jobs [Romney] Would Want To Eliminate.”?“But then Romney refers to ‘145,000 more government workers,’ which is correct only if he is referring to federal workers, not state workers….But?as we have written?much of that increase has come in areas that Romney says he wants to bolster as president, such as defense (80,000 additional jobs), veterans affairs (38,000) and homeland security (20,000). Presumably he would think such increases are a good thing — not jobs he would want to eliminate.” [Washington Post Fact Checker,?6/2/12]Tampa Bay Times PolitiFact: “National Defense, Assisting Veterans, And Protecting The National Borders Account For Close To 90 Percent Of All Federal Civilian Employee Growth.” “In round figures, from September 2009 to September 2011, the federal workforce grew about 100,000. Counting permanent civilian employees, the departments of the Army, Air Force, Navy and Defense grew by 53,000 -- more than half of the total. Veterans Affairs provides another 24,000, or about a quarter of the overall increase. Homeland Security contributes 12,000 -- call that another 10%. All told, national defense, assisting veterans, and protecting the national borders account for close to 90% of all federal civilian employee growth.” [PolitiFact, 1/9/12]The Vice President For Policy At The Partnership For Public Service Said, “The Sad Fact Is That The VA Has Had To Increase Staff At The Hospitals To Care For The Wounded Warriors Coming Back From Iraq And Afghanistan.” “There’s a nuance in Romney’s statement that bears some scrutiny. He talked about hiring lots of bureaucrats which raises the question, is everyone on the federal payroll a paper-pushing practitioner of the dark arts of red tape? Not in the opinion of Palguta. ‘The sad fact is that the VA has had to increase staff at the hospitals to care for the wounded warriors coming back from Iraq and Afghanistan,’ Palguta says.” [PolitiFact, 1/9/2012]THERE WERE FEWER GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES IN 2012 THAN DURING PRESIDENT REAGAN’S SECOND TERMPolitifact: The Number Of Government Employees In 2012 WasLess Than During The Second Term Of President Ronald Reagan. “Historic trends are worth a mention. ?The high water mark for government employees was in 1969 when there were 2.3 million workers. ??The number today, about 2.2 million, is less than during the second term of President Ronald Reagan. The low water mark came at the end of the Clinton administration but the 9-11 attacks put the country on an upward course during the presidency of George W. Bush.” [PolitiFact, 1/9/12]CONTRASTPresident Obama’s Deficit Reduction Plan Would Ask The Wealthy To Pay Their Fair Share, While Romney Would Cut Taxes For The Wealthiest And Add To The DebtPRESIDENT OBAMA HAS ALREADY SIGNED $1 TRILLION IN DEFICIT REDUCTION INTO LAW AND HAS A BALANCED PLAN TO REDUCE THE DEFICIT BY MORE THAN $4 TRILLION OVER THE NEXT DECADECenter On Budget And Policy Priorities: The President Signed The Budget Control Act, Which Included More Than $1 Trillion In Deficit Reduction And Will Cut Non-Defense Discretionary Spending To Its Lowest Level As A Share Of The Economy Since 1962. “Two-fifths of the $1.5 trillion in savings from cutting and capping funding for discretionary programs comes from defense, while the other three-fifths comes from reductions in domestic and international programs.? These reductions will shrink non-defense discretionary spending to its lowest level on record as a share of GDP, with data going back to 1962. The $1.5 trillion in reductions in discretionary spending also will produce lower interest payments on the debt.? The interest savings amount to about $250 billion, bringing the total deficit reduction achieved to date to more than $1.7 trillion.” [Center On Budget And Policy Priorities, 9/25/12]Center On Budget And Policy Priorities: President Obama’s Budget Would Stabilize The Debt Over The Coming Decade Through “A Balanced Combination Of Spending Cuts And Revenue Increases.”? “If Congress enacted the Obama budget in full?and?its economic assumptions proved correct, the debt would stabilize over the coming decade although, as the White House acknowledges, policymakers would have to subsequently enact significant further deficit reduction to keep the debt stable in future decades. The budget either achieves or approaches this key fiscal target for the coming decade with several trillion dollars in deficit reduction, through a balanced combination of spending cuts and revenue increases.” [Center On Budget And Policy Priorities, 2/16/12]The President’s Budget, Which Incorporates Deficit Reduction Enacted In 2011, Would Cut The Deficit By More Than $4 Trillion Over The Next Decade. “That is why in this Budget, the President again has put forward a plan that will, together with the deficit reduction enacted last year, cut the deficit by more than $4 trillion over the next decade. This would put our Nation on the right course toward a level of deficits of below 3 percent of GDP by the end of the decade.” [White House Office Of Management And Budget, February 2012]President Obama Proposed Eliminating Special Tax Breaks And Loopholes For Oil And Gas Companies And The Very Wealthy As Well As Ending The Bush Tax Cuts For Families Making More Than $250,000 A Year. “In the Budget, I reiterate my opposition to permanently extending the Bush tax cuts for families making more than $250,000 a year and my opposition to a more generous estate tax than we had in 2009 benefiting only the very largest estates. These policies were unfair and unaffordable when they were passed, and they remain so today. I will push for their expiration in the coming year. I also propose to eliminate special tax breaks for oil and gas companies; preferred treatment for the purchase of corporate jets; tax rules that give a larger percentage deduction to the wealthiest two percent than to middle-class families for itemized deductions; and a loophole that allows some of the wealthiest money managers in the country to pay only 15 percent tax on the millions of dollars they earn. And I support tax reform that observes the “Buffett Rule” that no household making more than $1 million annually should pay a smaller share of its income taxes than middle-class families pay.” [FY2013 Budget Message Of The President, February 2012]The President’s FY2013 Budget Calls For Investment In Infrastructure, Education, And Manufacturing Research While Keeping Discretionary Spending Flat. “President Obama will call for new spending on infrastructure, education and manufacturing research, as well as higher taxes on top earners… Officials said the budget would abide by spending caps set by Congress in the August budget deal, keeping discretionary spending levels essentially flat in fiscal 2013. Over the decade, discretionary spending would drop from 8.7% of gross domestic product to 5%, officials said.” [Los Angeles Times, 2/10/12]ROMNEY PROPOSED $5 TRILLION IN NEW TAX CUTS – WHICH WOULD SHOWER MILLIONAIRES AND BILLIONAIRES WITH EVEN MORE BENEFITS WHILE RAISING TAXES ON THE MIDDLE CLASS – BUT THE ONLY SPECIFICS ROMNEY HAS LAID OUT “WOULD MAKE THE DEFICIT BIGGER, NOT SMALLER, AND ADD TO THE DEBT, NOT SUBTRACT FROM IT”?Center On Budget And Policy Priorities: Romney’s New Tax Cuts Would Cost $4.9 Trillion Over A Decade, On Top Of The Cost Of Extending The Bush Tax Cuts.?“The Tax Policy Center estimates that the Romney tax plan would lose about $480 billion in tax revenue in calendar year 2015, beyond the revenues losses inherent in maintaining current policy (such as continuing all of the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts). Over the 2014-2022 period, that implies a total reduction in revenues of about $4.9 trillion, relative to current tax policy.” [Center on Budget and Policy Priorities,?5/21/12]Wall Street Journal: “A New Study Released Wednesday Suggests That Mitt Romney’s Tax Plan Would Benefit The Rich And Hurt The Poor And Middle Class, No Matter How Current Blanks In The Plan Are Filled In.”” [Wall Street Journal, 8/1/12]Los Angeles Times: “Romney Says He Wants To Balance The Budget Within Four Years, But He Has Not Spelled Out A Plan To Do So.” [Los Angeles Times, 8/27/12]Los Angeles Times: Romney Has Only Spoken In Specifics About Plans That “Would Make The Deficit Bigger, Not Smaller, And Add To The Debt, Not Subtract From It.” “Romney says he wants to balance the budget within four years, but he has not spelled out a plan to do so. Instead, most of the plans he has talked about specifically – significant new tax cuts, increased defense spending, no changes in Medicare or Social Security until people now 55 reach retirement age, postponing the automatic spending cuts scheduled to start Jan. 1 – would make the deficit bigger, not smaller,? and add to the debt, not subtract from it.” [Los Angeles Times, 8/27/12]Pushback: President Obama Is Responsible For The SequesterTHE SEQUESTER WAS APPROVED ON A BIPARTISAN VOTE, AND PRESIDENT OBAMA HAS CALLED ON CONGRESS TO OVERTURN AUTOMATIC SPENDING CUTS AND PROVIDED A PLAN THAT WOULD AVOID THE SEQUESTERTHE BUDGET CONTROL ACT PASSED CONGRESS ON A BIPARTISAN VOTEThe Budget Control Act Of 2011 Passed The Senate On A Vote Of 74-26 With 28 GOP Senators Voting In Favor. [Vote 123, 8/2/11]The House Of Representatives?Passed The Budget Control Act Of 2011 By A Vote Of 269-161, With 174 House Republicans Supporting. [Vote 690, 8/1/11]Washington Post: Most Republicans In The?House And?Senate, Voted For The Cuts In Question.” “In his speech tonight, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ)?decried?Obama for cutting defense, saying,?‘We can’t afford another $500 billion in cuts to our defense budget — on top of the nearly $500 billion in cuts that the president is already making…And yet, the president is playing no leadership role in preventing this crippling blow to our military.’ There’s just one problem: John McCain, and most other Republicans in the?House and?Senate, voted for the cuts in question.” [Washington Post, 8/29/12]PRESIDENT OBAMA HAS CALLED ON CONGRESS TO OVERTURN AUTOMATIC SPENDING CUTS AND PROVIDED A PLAN THAT WOULD AVOID THE SEQUESTERPresident Obama “Made Clear That Congress Can And Must Act To Avoid The Sweeping Impacts Of The Sequester” And Provided Multiple Blueprints For Balanced Deficit Reduction To Avoid The Sequester. “The President has made clear that the Congress can and must act to avoid the sweeping impacts of the sequester by passing a balanced deficit reduction package. Last fall, the Administration provided a blueprint for the Congress to do so. And in his 2013 Budget, the President proposed a comprehensive balanced deficit reduction package that would ensure the Nation lives within its means and, including legislation signed into law last year, reduces the deficit by $4 trillion while supporting job creation and long-term economic growth. This package would achieve more than enough deficit reduction to avoid the sequester.” [Statement Of Administration Policy On H.R. 5652, Sequester Replacement Reconciliation Act Of 2012, 5/9/12]Washington Post Wonkblog: Contrary To Ryan’s Claims, The President Proposed A Budget That Would Avoid The Sequester, But Congress “Kept It From Going Anywhere.” “But Ryan is wrong in stating that Obama has no sequester replacement: ?In fact, the president has proposed a 2013 budget that avoids the sequester’s automatic cuts for all 10 years, while Ryan’s alternative would only?stop the cuts?for 2013…But Congress has kept it from going anywhere:?Both the House and Senate voted down Obama’s budget, but in the Senate, the?0-99 vote?was political theater: Republicans offered up the president’s budget without any of the actual policy language attached, so none of the specifics were actually up for a vote.” [Washington Post Wonkblog, 9/10/12]Washington Post Wonkblog: Only Congress, “One Body Of Which Is Controlled By Republicans And The Other Body Of Which Can’t Pass Laws Without Republican Support,” Can Avoid The Sequester. “The sequester is a blunt instrument, in that it does not make any attempt to differentiate between kinds of defense spending. It simply cuts everything by 10 percent across the board. But there’s a body that has the power to change the law and keep the laws from taking effect, namely Congress, one body of which is controlled by Republicans and the other body of which can’t pass laws without Republican support. So attacking Obama for taking “no?leadership role”?in reversing the cuts is a bit strange. He can’t reduce the cuts. Congress can.” [Washington Post, 8/29/12]ROMNEY SAID HE DIDN’T WANT CONGRESS TO TAKE ACTION BEFORE INAUGURATION DAY 2013 AS CONGRESSIONAL REPUBLICANS STALLED ON A DEFICIT SOLUTIONWall Street Journal:“Romney Said In A Recent Interview With Time Magazine That He Hopes The Lame-Duck Congress Doesn't Enact Long-Term Legislation On The Looming Fiscal Issues.”? “Mr. Romney said in a recent interview with Time magazine that he hopes the lame-duck Congress doesn't enact long-term legislation on the looming fiscal issues if he is elected, but instead gives him time to make his own proposals.” [Wall Street Journal, 6/13/12]Congressional Republicans Have “Doubled Down” On Their “Insistence That A Deficit Solution Include Only Cuts To Non-Defense Social Spending” And No Tax Increases.?“The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) on Wednesday warned the economy will enter a recession next year if the country goes over the so-called fiscal cliff… Democrats last month threatened to let the nation go over the fiscal cliff unless Republicans agree to a ‘balanced’ deficit package that includes some tax increases. The GOP has so far doubled down on its insistence that a deficit solution include only cuts to non-defense social spending.” [The Hill,?8/22/12]RYAN VOTED FOR THE BUDGET CONTROL ACT AND PROPOSED AUTOMATIC DEFENSE CUTS IN HIS 2010 ROADMAPRyan Voted In Favor Of The Budget Control Act, Which Provided A Process To Reduce The Deficit By Up to $2.4 Trillion While Increasing The Debt Limit By The Same Amount And Created A Bipartisan, Bicameral Committee Tasked With Recommending $1.5 Trillion In Deficit Reductions. Ryan voted in favor of the Budget Control Act, which would provide a process to reduce the deficit by up to $2.4 trillion. The measure would allow the President to raise the debt limit immediately by $400 billion, with an additional $500 billion subject to a resolution of disapproval. It would set discretionary spending caps that would reduce the deficit by $917 billion in fiscal 2012 through 2021 and establish a firewall between security and non-security spending for fiscal 2012 and 2013. It would establish a bipartisan, bicameral committee tasked with making recommendations to reduce the deficit by $1.5 trillion. It would require across-the-board cuts to non-exempt discretionary and mandatory accounts by up to $1.2 trillion over fiscal 2013 through 2021 if committee reductions totaling $1.2 trillion were not enacted. The measure would require Congress to vote on a balanced-budget constitutional amendment by the end of 2011. It also would provide for an additional debt limit increase of $1.2 trillion to $1.5 trillion, subject to a resolution of disapproval. The bill passed 269-161. [S. 365, Vote #690, CQ Floor Votes 8/1/11]Ryan Called The Budget Control Act “A Victory.” “Ryan voted for the Budget Control Act when it passed, calling it ‘a victory for those committed to controlling government spending and growing our economy.’” [CBS News, 8/23/12]Washington Post Headline: “Ryan Proposed Automatic Defense Cuts In Earlier Budget Plan” [Washington Post, 9/17/12]Washington Post: “Ryan Himself Proposed To Cap Government Spending And Enforce Those Caps With Automatic Spending Cuts That Would Have Hit The Pentagon.” [Washington Post, 9/17/12]Ryan’s 2010 Roadmap Included A Provision For Automatic Defense Spending Cuts. “As introduced in 2010, Ryan’s ‘Roadmap for America’s Future’ would have created ‘a mechanism to automatically slow the growth in faster-spending entitlement programs’ by requiring the White House budget office ‘to make across-the-board spending reductions in both mandatory and discretionary program’ if overall federal spending breached specified limits. The Defense Department would have been a target for cuts, House Budget Committee aides confirmed Monday, though the impact would have been limited to 1 percent of any agency’s budget.” [Washington Post, 9/17/12]Pushback: Republican Obstructionism Led To The Credit DowngradeRYAN’S CLAIM THAT PRESIDENT OBAMA CAUSED THE DEBT DOWNGRADE IS “FALSE” – IN FACT S&P PLACED BLAME ON RYAN AND HIS FELLOW HOUSE REPUBLICANSBoston Globe’s Peter Canellos: “Ryan, Who Helped Lead The House GOP’s Kamikaze-Like Refusal To Raise The Debt Ceiling, Blamed Obama For The Harm To The Nation’s Credit Rating.” [Peter Canellos op-ed, Boston Globe, 8/30/12]Romney: “Paul Ryan Has Become An Intellectual Leader Of The Republican Party.” [Romney Bus Tour Rally, Norfolk, Virginia, 8/11/12]Washington Post’s Wonkblog: Ryan’s Claim That President Obama Caused The Debt Downgrade Is “False” – “In Its Report Announcing The Downgrade, S&P Was Clear That Blame Rested With House Republicans For Making The Debt Ceiling Increase Conditional On Deficit Reduction.”“Paul Ryan said in his speech that Obama’s presidency ‘began with a perfect Triple-A credit rating for the United States; it ends with a downgraded America.’ This implies that Obama was responsible for Standard and Poor’s downgrading of U.S. debt. That is false. In its report announcing the downgrade, S&P was clear that blame rested with House Republicans for making the debt ceiling increase conditional on deficit reduction. ‘The political brinksmanship of recent months highlights what we see as America’s governance and policymaking becoming less stable, less effective, and less predictable than what we previously believed,’ the report reads. ‘The statutory debt ceiling and the threat of default have become political bargaining chips in the debate over fiscal policy.’ It also faults Congressional Republicans for ‘continu[ing] to resist any measure that would raise revenues.’” [Washington Post, Wonkblog, 8/30/12] Said Ryan’s Claim That Obama Was Behind The Loss Of A Triple-A Bond Rating Was Wrong. Ryan “Blamed Obama for the loss of a AAA credit rating for the U.S. Actually, Standard & Poor’s blamed the downgrade on the uncompromising stands of both Republicans and Democrats.” [, 8/30/12]CNNMoney: Republican Demands For Spending Cuts Led “To An Epic Washington Fight That Led To A First-Ever?U.S. Credit Downgrade And A Major Disruption In Global Markets.” “House Speaker?John Boehner?has all but promised an ugly fight over the debt ceiling this year unless GOP demands for spending cuts are met. Sound familiar? The GOP took the?same tact?last year, leading eventually to an epic Washington fight that led to a first-ever?U.S. credit downgrade and a major disruption in global markets.” [CNNMoney, 5/16/12]Washington Post Plum Line Blog: “The Downgrade Was The Result Of Republicans Turning A Procedural Vote On Raising The Debt Ceiling Into A Hostage Negotiation.” [Washington Post, Plum Line Blog, 8/8/11]RYAN AND THE HOUSE REPUBLICANS’ INITIAL REFUSAL TO RAISE THE DEBT LIMIT WAS LARGELY BEHIND THE DOWNGRADENew York Times: Ryan “Lamented The Nation's Credit Rating -- Which Was Downgraded After A Debt-Ceiling Standoff That He And Other House Republicans Helped Instigate.” “Representative Paul D. Ryan used his convention speech on Wednesday to fault President Obama for failing to act on a deficit-reduction plan that he himself had helped kill. He chided Democrats for seeking $716 billion in Medicare cuts that he too had sought. And he lamented the nation's credit rating -- which was downgraded after a debt-ceiling standoff that he and other House Republicans helped instigate.” [New York Times, 8/31/12]Boston Globe’s Peter Canellos: “Ryan, Who Helped Lead The House GOP’s Kamikaze-Like Refusal To Raise The Debt Ceiling, Blamed Obama For The Harm To The Nation’s Credit Rating.” [Peter Canellos op-ed, Boston Globe, 8/30/12]SPEAKER BOEHNER SAID CONGRESSIONAL REPUBLICANS PURSUED “CHAOS” TO SECURE A BALANCED BUDGET AMENDMENT—AND THE EXTENT OF BRINKMANSHIP WAS THE MOTIVATION FOR THE CREDIT DOWNGRADEA Top Official At Standard & Poor’s Said The Company’s Decision To Downgrade U.S. Government Debt Was Motivated By The Debt Ceiling Debate And That “It Involved A Level Of Brinksmanship Greater Than What We Had Expected.” “A top official at rating firm Standard & Poor's said Friday the company's decision to downgrade U.S. government debt for the first time in 70 years was due in part to Washington's political paralysis surrounding raising the debt ceiling. The ‘conclusion was pretty much motivated by all of the debate about the raising of the debt ceiling,’ John Chambers, chairman of S&P's sovereign ratings committee, said in an interview. ‘It involved a level of brinksmanship greater than what we had expected earlier in the year.’” [Wall Street Journal, 8/5/11]Asked Why Republicans In Congress Continued The Debt Ceiling Debate, Speaker Boehner Said “A Lot Of Them Believe That If We Get Past August The Second And We Have Enough Chaos, We Could Force The Senate And The White House To Accept A Balanced Budget Amendment.” In an interview on Laura Ingraham Radio, Speaker John Boehner said, “Well, first they want more. And my goodness, I want more too. And secondly,?a lot of them believe that if we get past August the second and we have enough chaos, we could force the Senate and the White House to accept a balanced budget amendment. I’m not sure that that — I don’t think that that strategy works. Because I think the closer we get to August the second, frankly, the less leverage we have vis a vis our colleagues in the Senate and the White House.” [Speaker Boehner On Laura Ingraham Radio, audio via ThinkProgress, 7/27/11]CONSERVATIVE LEADERS AND COMMENTATORS CRITICIZED REPUBLICANS IN CONGRESS AS IRRESPONSIBLE AND DISAPPOINTING FOR BRINKMANSHIP DURING THE DEBT CEILING DEBATENorm Ornstein Of The Conservative American Enterprise Institute Noted That “At The Height Of The Debt Ceiling Battle,” Former Republican Senator Chuck Hagel Called His Party “Irresponsible.” “The GOP’s evolution has become too much for some longtime Republicans. Former senator Chuck Hagel of Nebraska called his party ‘irresponsible’?in an interview with the Financial Times in August, at the height of the debt-ceiling battle. ‘I think the Republican Party is captive to political movements that are very ideological, that are very narrow,’ he said. ‘I’ve never seen so much intolerance as I see today in American politics.’” [Op-Ed By Thomas Mann And Norm Ornstein, Washington Post, 4/27/12]Former Republican Senator Chuck Hagel Said He Was “Disappointed” In The Republican Party During The Debt Ceiling Debate. In an interview with the Financial Times, in response to the question, “How do you rate how your your own party – the Republican Party – did following this prolonged debt ceiling debate,” Former Republican Senator Chuck Hagel responded, “I was very disappointed. I was very disgusted in how this played out in Washington, this debt ceiling debate. It was an astounding lack of responsible leadership by many in the Republican Party, and I say that as a Republican.” [Financial Times, 9/1/11]David Brooks On The Tea Party: “If You Ask Them To Raise Taxes By An Inch To Cut Government By A Yard, They Will Still Say No.” “The members of this movement do not accept the logic of compromise, no matter how sweet the terms. If you ask them to raise taxes by an inch in order to cut government by a foot, they will say no. If you ask them to raise taxes by an inch to cut government by a yard, they will still say no.” [David Brooks, New York Times, 7/5/2011]ROMNEY BACKED CONGRESSIONAL REPUBLICANS STALLING TO RAISE THE DEBT CEILING TO AVOID DEFAULTRomney Backed Congressional Republicans Refusing To Increase Government Revenue As Part Of A Deal To Raise The Debt Ceiling And Avoid Default. “Republican presidential frontrunner Mitt Romney backs the congressional Republicans refusing to increase government revenue as part of a deal to raise the debt ceiling and avoid default. Romney’s position on ‘revenue raisers’ to bring more money into the government as a way to help balance the budget ‘would be the same as those in the Congress who hold the view that we cannot have tax increases as part of the debt ceiling,’ a Romney aide told POLITICO.” [Politico, 7/15/11]Romney Raised His Hand When Fox New Asked Whether He Would Reject A Budget Deal That $10 Spending Cuts For Every $1 In Tax Increases. “A month ago, Mitt Romney, like every other GOP presidential hopeful, raised his hand when Fox News asked whether he would reject a budget deal that was $10 in spending cuts for every $1 in tax increases.” [Washington Post, 9/7/11]ROMNEY ATTACKED THE BIPARTISAN DEBT DEAL IN THE CRITICAL MOMENTS BEFORE THE VOTE Washington Post’s Ruth Marcus: Romney’s “11th Hour And 59th Minute” Opposition To The Debt Ceiling Deal “Is Completely Irresponsible.” “But is he really calling on Republican lawmakers to vote down the deal? I understand the political allure of this position: Hellooo Tea Party. Take that, Michele Bachmann. But unlike his earlier ducking, this opposition—at the 11th hour and 59th minute, by the way—is completely irresponsible coming from a man who could easily be president. You can only hope that when Mitt Romney talks, House Republicans don’t necessarily listen. If this man is willing to act so cavalierly in pursuit of the presidency, what would he do in office?” [Ruth Marcus, Washington Post, 8/1/11]New York Times’ Ross Douthat: “Romney Took A Deliberately Hazy Position On Last Week’s Crucial House Debate [On The Debt Ceiling], Preferring To Flunk A Test Of Leadership Rather Than Risk Alienating Either Side.” “The ostensible front-runner for the Republican nomination, Mitt Romney, took a deliberately hazy position on last week’s crucial House debate, preferring to flunk a test of leadership rather than risk alienating either side.” [Ross Douthat, New York Times, 7/31/11]Daily Beast’s Michael Tomasky: Romney’s “Entry Into The Debt-Ceiling Debate Was Laughably Late And Wrong.” “Barack Obama got taken to school by Mitch McConnell and John Boehner, but he does have this much going for him: He’s probably going to be running for reelection against Mitt Romney, whose entry into the debt-ceiling debate was laughably late and wrong.” [Michael Tomasky, Daily Beast, 8/1/11]Romney’s Plan Is Nothing Like Simpson-BowlesROMNEY’S PLAN HAS ALMOST NOTHING IN COMMENT WITH SIMPSON-BOWLESTax Policy Center Headline: “The Bowles-Simpson and Romney Tax Plans Have Almost Nothing in Common” [Howard Gleckman, Tax Policy Center, 8/9/12]Tax Policy Center’s Howard Gleckman: The Claim That Romney’s Tax Plan Is Similar To Bowles-Simpson Is “Absurd. These Two Proposals Could Hardly Be More Different.” [Howard Gleckman, Tax Policy Center, 8/9/12]Politico Headline: “Erskine Bowles To Romney: You’re No Bowles Or Simpson.” [Politico, 8/10/12]Erskine Bowles: “I Will Be The First To Cheer If Romney Decides To Embrace Our Plan. Unfortunately, The Numbers Say Otherwise: His Reform Plan Leaves Too Many Tax Breaks In Place And, As A Result, Does Nothing To Reduce The Debt.” [Erskine Bowles Op-Ed, Washington Post, 8/9/12]Erskine Bowles: “The Romney Plan, By Sticking To Revenue-Neutrality And Leaving In Place Tax Breaks, Would Raise Taxes On The Middle Class And Do Nothing To Shrink The Deficit.” [Erskine Bowles Op-Ed, Washington Post, 8/9/12]RYAN VOTED AGAINST SIMPSON-BOWLESAssociated Press: “THE FACTS: [Ryan] Was A Member Of The [Debt] Commission And Voted Against Its Final Report.” [Associated Press, 8/30/12]Fox News’ Chris Wallace: Ryan Criticized President Obama For Not Acting On The Simpson-Bowles Plan He Opposed. Chris Wallace: “And he also criticized the president for doing nothing about the Bowles-Simpson plan. He was a member of the Bowles-Simpson commission, and he voted against it.” [Fox News, 8/29/12]Washington Post Editorial: Ryan’s Account Of Debt Commission Omitted That Ryan Himself “Was Unwilling To Follow The Brave Lead Of The Republican Senators On The Panel Who Supported Its ‘Urgent’ Recommendations.” “Mr. Ryan skewered the president in his speech for creating and then walking away from a bipartisan debt commission that, he said, ‘came back with an urgent report.’ We’ve expressed similar frustrations, but omitted from Mr. Ryan’s self-serving rendition was the uncomfortable fact that Mr. Ryan served on that very commission but was unwilling to follow the brave lead of the Republican senators on the panel who supported its ‘urgent’ recommendations.” [Washington Post, Editorial, 8/29/12]Salon’s Joan Walsh: Ryan “Derided The President For Walking Away From The Simpson Bowles Commission Deficit-Cutting Recommendations When Ryan Himself, A Commission Member, Voted Against Those Recommendations.”? [Joan Walsh, Salon, 8/30/12] ATTACKRomney’s History Of Racking Up DebtROMNEY AND HIS PARTNERS MADE MORE THAN $400 MILLION FROM JUST FOUR COMPANIES THAT THEY LOADED WITH DEBT, DRIVING THEM INTO BANKRUPTCYLos Angeles Times: “Under Romney’s Leadership, Bain Became One Of The Nation’s Top Leveraged-Buyout Firms, Helping Lead A Trend In Which Companies Were Acquired Using Debt Often Pledged Against Their Own Assets Or Earnings.” “But a closer examination of the prospectus paints a different picture of Bain’s operation. Under Romney’s leadership, Bain became one of the nation’s top leveraged-buyout firms, helping lead a trend in which companies were acquired using debt often pledged against their own assets or earnings.” [Los Angeles Times, 12/3/11]New York Times: At Four Bain-Owned Companies That Went Bankrupt, “Bain Investors Also Profited, Amassing More Than $400 Million In Gains Before The Companies Ran Aground.” “In four of the seven Bain-owned companies that went bankrupt, Bain investors also profited, amassing more than $400 million in gains before the companies ran aground, The Times found. All four, however, later became mired in debt incurred, at least in part, to repay Bain investors or to carry out a Bain-led acquisition strategy.” [New York Times, 6/22/12]All Four Companies “Became Mired In Debt Incurred, At Least In Part, To Repay Bain Investors Or To Carry Out A Bain-Led Acquisition Strategy.” “In four of the seven Bain-owned companies that went bankrupt, Bain investors also profited, amassing more than $400 million in gains before the companies ran aground, The Times found. All four, however, later became mired in debt incurred, at least in part, to repay Bain investors or to carry out a Bain-led acquisition strategy.” [New York Times, 6/22/12]BY THE END OF ROMNEY’S TERM MASSACHUSETTS RANKED FIRST IN THE NATION FOR HIGHEST PER CAPITA DEBTThe Republican Headline: “Mass. Tops U.S. As Debtor State.” [The Republican, 2/3/07]The Tax Foundation Listed Massachusetts As Ranked With Highest State Debt Per Capita At The End Of Fiscal Year 2007. The Tax Foundation listed Massachusetts debt per capita as $10,546 at the end of fiscal year 2007. It was first in the nation, while Alaska was second. [Tax Foundation, Facts & Figures, 2009]ROMNEY PROPOSED $5 TRILLION IN NEW TAX CUTS – WHICH WOULD SHOWER MILLIONAIRES AND BILLIONAIRES WITH EVEN MORE BENEFITS – BUT THE ONLY SPECIFICS ROMNEY HAS LAID OUT “WOULD MAKE THE DEFICIT BIGGER, NOT SMALLER, AND ADD TO THE DEBT, NOT SUBTRACT FROM IT”?Center On Budget And Policy Priorities: Romney’s New Tax Cuts Would Cost $4.9 Trillion Over A Decade, On Top Of The Cost Of Extending The Bush Tax Cuts. “The Tax Policy Center estimates that the Romney tax plan would lose about $480 billion in tax revenue in calendar year 2015, beyond the revenues losses inherent in maintaining current policy (such as continuing all of the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts).? Over the 2014-2022 period, that implies a total reduction in revenues of about $4.9 trillion, relative to current tax policy.” [Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 5/21/12]Wall Street Journal: “A New Study Released Wednesday Suggests That Mitt Romney’s Tax Plan Would Benefit The Rich And Hurt The Poor And Middle Class, No Matter How Current Blanks In The Plan Are Filled In.”” [Wall Street Journal, 8/1/12]Los Angeles Times: “Romney Says He Wants To Balance The Budget Within Four Years, But He Has Not Spelled Out A Plan To Do So.” [Los Angeles Times, 8/27/12]Los Angeles Times: Romney Has Only Spoken In Specifics About Plans That “Would Make The Deficit Bigger, Not Smaller, And Add To The Debt, Not Subtract From It.” “Romney says he wants to balance the budget within four years, but he has not spelled out a plan to do so. Instead, most of the plans he has talked about specifically – significant new tax cuts, increased defense spending, no changes in Medicare or Social Security until people now 55 reach retirement age, postponing the automatic spending cuts scheduled to start Jan. 1 – would make the deficit bigger, not smaller,? and add to the debt, not subtract from it.” [Los Angeles Times, 8/27/12]Romney Opposed Any Deficit Reduction Proposal With Increased RevenueROMNEY AND RYAN REFUSED TO SUPPORT ANY PROPOSAL THAT WOULD INCLUDE ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT REVENUE…Romney Raised His Hand When Fox New Asked Whether He Would Reject A Budget Deal That $10 Spending Cuts For Every $1 In Tax Increases. “A month ago, Mitt Romney, like every other GOP presidential hopeful, raised his hand when Fox News asked whether he would reject a budget deal that was $10 in spending cuts for every $1 in tax increases.” [Washington Post, 9/7/11]Romney: “I Don't Believe That Raising Revenues Is The Right Answer To Balancing Our Budget.” [NBC News, 11/21/11]Romney Backed Congressional Republicans Refusing To Increase Government Revenue As Part Of A Deal To Raise The Debt Ceiling And Avoid Default. “Republican presidential frontrunner Mitt Romney backs the congressional Republicans refusing to increase government revenue as part of a deal to raise the debt ceiling and avoid default. Romney’s position on ‘revenue raisers’ to bring more money into the government as a way to help balance the budget ‘would be the same as those in the Congress who hold the view that we cannot have tax increases as part of the debt ceiling,’ a Romney aide told POLITICO.” [Politico, 7/15/11]Ryan Signed Americans For Tax Reform Pledge Not To Raise Income Taxes, Or Eliminate Tax Deductions Or Credits Without Matching Tax Cuts.?In 2012, Ryan was listed as a signer of the Americans for Tax Reform’s “Taxpayer Protection Pledge,” stating that he opposed any increase in the marginal income tax rate, or net reduction or elimination of deductions and credits, unless matched dollar for dollar by further reducing tax rates. [ATR Pledge, , accessed 10/11/12]…AND REFUSED TO ASK THE WEALTHY TO PAY THEIR FAIR SHARE?Romney Opposed The Buffett Rule Saying “I Disagree With Warren. And I Do Want To Keep The Bush Tax Cuts In Place” … “If He’d Like To Pay More, I’d Like Him To Write A Big Check.” “And several times today, he was asked about the New York Times opinion piece by billionaire Warren Buffett calling for increased taxes on the wealthy as a way to cut the deficit. ‘I disagree with Warren. And I do want to keep the Bush tax cuts in place,’ Romney said. ‘If he’d like to pay more, I’d like him to write a big check. A few billion from Warren would help out, so send it in Warren, and get your friends to do the same, that’d be terrific…I say that kind of tongue in cheek.’” [Boston Globe, 8/16/11]The Buffett Rule Would Mean “No Household Making Over $1 Million Annually Should Pay A Smaller Share Of Its Income In Taxes Than Middle-Class Families Pay.” “The study validates claims recently touted by billionaire investor Warren Buffett, that the percentage he paid on his taxable income in a given year was ‘a lower percentage than was paid by any of the other 20 people’ in his office. Buffett argued in an August opinion piece that lawmakers in Washington should raise taxes on the ‘mega-rich’ who have been ‘coddled long enough by a billionaire-friendly Congress.’ His comments inspired the so-called Buffett Rule, an Obama administration initiative that endeavors to change the tax code so that ‘no household making over $1 million annually should pay a smaller share of its income in taxes than middle-class families pay.’” [CBS, 10/13/11]?Kudlow: “Would You Tax The Wealthy Also?” Romney: “Of Course Not.”? ?In an interview with Mitt Romney, Larry Kudlow asked, “So you agree with Buffet… would you tax wealthy, also?” Romney, “Of course not. We have right now a 15% tax on capital gains. That's the rate that I would keep in place for now. And what I would say is we would remove the tax for people in middle incomes. Their tax would go to zero. The tax for higher income folks would stay the same.” [Kudlow Report, CNBC, 9/6/11]?Regarding The Tax Code, Romney Said “I’m Not Looking To Change The Deal. I’m Not Looking To Go After High-Income Individuals Like Myself.” [Interview, Wall Street Journal Editorial Board, 12/24/11]Romney’s Plans Would Leave A $7 Trillion Hole To FillROMNEY’S LAID OUT $7 TRILLION IN SPENDING BUT THE ONLY SPECIFICS ROMNEY HAS LAID OUT “WOULD MAKE THE DEFICIT BIGGER, NOT SMALLER, AND ADD TO THE DEBT, NOT SUBTRACT FROM IT”CBPP: Romney’s New Tax Cuts Would Cost $4.9 Trillion Over A Decade, On Top Of The Cost Of Extending The Bush Tax Cuts.?“The Tax Policy Center estimates that the Romney tax plan would lose about $480 billion in tax revenue in calendar year 2015, beyond the revenues losses inherent in maintaining current policy (such as continuing all of the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts). Over the 2014-2022 period, that implies a total reduction in revenues of about $4.9 trillion, relative to current tax policy.” [Center on Budget and Policy Priorities,?5/21/12]Wall Street Journal: “[Romney’s] Defense Spending Plans, Which Could Add Another $2 Trillion To The Budget Over The Next Decade, Further Complicate His Math.” [Wall Street Journal, 8/13/12]Los Angeles Times: “Romney Says He Wants To Balance The Budget Within Four Years, But He Has Not Spelled Out A Plan To Do So.” [Los Angeles Times, 8/27/12]Los Angeles Times: Romney Has Only Spoken In Specifics About Plans That “Would Make The Deficit Bigger, Not Smaller, And Add To The Debt, Not Subtract From It.” “Romney says he wants to balance the budget within four years, but he has not spelled out a plan to do so. Instead, most of the plans he has talked about specifically – significant new tax cuts, increased defense spending, no changes in Medicare or Social Security until people now 55 reach retirement age, postponing the automatic spending cuts scheduled to start Jan. 1 – would make the deficit bigger, not smaller,? and add to the debt, not subtract from it.” [Los Angeles Times, 8/27/12]EVEN UNDER A FAVORABLE ANALYSIS, ROMNEY’S PLANS COULD INCREASE THE DEBT TO 96% OF GDP – HIGHER THAN UNDER THE PRESIDENT’S PLANCommittee For A Responsible Federal Budget: Even If Romney Paid For His Tax Cuts, He Would Increase The Debt To 85% Of GDP – And Without A Specific Plan To Pay For Them, Romney Would Increase The Debt To 96% Of GDP. “In our current intermediate-debt scenario, we estimate that Governor Romney’s plans would result in debt levels at about 86 percent of GDP in 2021. Should Romney enact sufficient base broadening – likely including substantial changes to the major itemized deductions and exclusions – so that his entire plan is deficit-neutral to current policy, his debt levels would be at about 85 percent of GDP in 2021. On the other hand, if Governor Romney enacted these additional tax cuts without offsets, his 2021 debt levels would be 96 percent of GDP.” [Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, Primary Numbers: The GOP Candidates and the National Debt, 2/23/12]According To The Congressional Budget Office, The President’s Budget Stabilizes The Debt As A Share Of The Economy At 76 Percent. [“An Analysis Of The President’s 2013 Budget,” Congressional Budget Office, Table 2, March 2012]The Committee For A Responsible Federal Budget’s Debt Analysis Assumed Romney Would Pay For His Increase In Defense Spending In Its Intermediate Scenario. “Governor Romney proposes to put in place a defense spending floor at 4 percent of GDP per year, which is more than we forecast in our realistic baseline… The Romney campaign has stated its commitment to finance these costs through further non-defense savings, so we assume in the low and intermediate-debt scenarios that the costs would be fully offset.” [Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, Primary Numbers: The GOP Candidates and the National Debt, 2/23/12]Romney’s Plans Would Leave An $8 Trillion Hole To FillROMNEY’S LAID OUT $8 TRILLION IN SPENDING BUT THE ONLY SPECIFICS ROMNEY HAS LAID OUT “WOULD MAKE THE DEFICIT BIGGER, NOT SMALLER, AND ADD TO THE DEBT, NOT SUBTRACT FROM IT”?CBPP: Romney’s New Tax Cuts Would Cost $4.9 Trillion Over A Decade, On Top Of The Cost Of Extending The Bush Tax Cuts.?“The Tax Policy Center estimates that the Romney tax plan would lose about $480 billion in tax revenue in calendar year 2015, beyond the revenues losses inherent in maintaining current policy (such as continuing all of the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts). Over the 2014-2022 period, that implies a total reduction in revenues of about $4.9 trillion, relative to current tax policy.” [Center on Budget and Policy Priorities,?5/21/12]CBO: Extending The Bush Tax Cuts For Those Making More Than $250,000 Would Cost $950 Billion Over A Decade.?“The Congressional Budget Office’s (CBO) new report shows that allowing President Bush’s 2001 and 2003 income tax cuts on income over $250,000 to expire on schedule at the end of 2012 would save $823 billion in revenue and $127 billion on interest on the nation’s debt, compared to permanently extending all of the Bush tax cuts. Overall, this would mean $950 billion in ten-year deficit reduction, a significant step in the direction of fiscal stability.” [Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, Off the Charts blog,?8/24/12]Wall Street Journal: “[Romney’s] Defense Spending Plans, Which Could Add Another $2 Trillion To The Budget Over The Next Decade, Further Complicate His Math.” [Wall Street Journal, 8/13/12]Los Angeles Times: “Romney Says He Wants To Balance The Budget Within Four Years, But He Has Not Spelled Out A Plan To Do So.” [Los Angeles Times, 8/27/12]Los Angeles Times: Romney Has Only Spoken In Specifics About Plans That “Would Make The Deficit Bigger, Not Smaller, And Add To The Debt, Not Subtract From It.” “Romney says he wants to balance the budget within four years, but he has not spelled out a plan to do so. Instead, most of the plans he has talked about specifically – significant new tax cuts, increased defense spending, no changes in Medicare or Social Security until people now 55 reach retirement age, postponing the automatic spending cuts scheduled to start Jan. 1 – would make the deficit bigger, not smaller,? and add to the debt, not subtract from it.” [Los Angeles Times, 8/27/12]EVEN UNDER A FAVORABLE ANALYSIS, ROMNEY’S PLANS COULD INCREASE THE DEBT TO 96% OF GDP – HIGHER THAN UNDER THE PRESIDENT’S PLANCommittee For A Responsible Federal Budget: Even If Romney Paid For His Tax Cuts, He Would Increase The Debt To 85% Of GDP – And Without A Specific Plan To Pay For Them, Romney Would Increase The Debt To 96% Of GDP. “In our current intermediate-debt scenario, we estimate that Governor Romney’s plans would result in debt levels at about 86 percent of GDP in 2021. Should Romney enact sufficient base broadening – likely including substantial changes to the major itemized deductions and exclusions – so that his entire plan is deficit-neutral to current policy, his debt levels would be at about 85 percent of GDP in 2021. On the other hand, if Governor Romney enacted these additional tax cuts without offsets, his 2021 debt levels would be 96 percent of GDP.” [Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, Primary Numbers: The GOP Candidates and the National Debt, 2/23/12]According To The Congressional Budget Office, The President’s Budget Stabilizes The Debt As A Share Of The Economy At 76 Percent. [“An Analysis Of The President’s 2013 Budget,” Congressional Budget Office, Table 2, March 2012]The Committee For A Responsible Federal Budget’s Debt Analysis Assumed Romney Would Pay For His Increase In Defense Spending In Its Intermediate Scenario. “Governor Romney proposes to put in place a defense spending floor at 4 percent of GDP per year, which is more than we forecast in our realistic baseline… The Romney campaign has stated its commitment to finance these costs through further non-defense savings, so we assume in the low and intermediate-debt scenarios that the costs would be fully offset.” [Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, Primary Numbers: The GOP Candidates and the National Debt, 2/23/12]Bush Ties: Romney Supported The Bush Policies That Created The Large DeficitROMNEY ENDORSED AND RYAN VOTED FOR BUSH ERA BUDGET BUSTING POLICIESRomney’s 59 Point Plan: Make The Bush Tax Cuts Permanent. “As with the marginal income tax rates, Mitt Romney will seek to make permanent the lower tax rates for investment income put in place by President Bush.” [Romney’s Plan For Jobs And Economic Growth,?9/6/11]?Romney: “Believe [President Bush] Was Right To Take On The War On Terror On An Aggressive Front Rather Than A Defensive Front.” In 2006, during an appearance on FOX News’ O’Reilly Factor, Mitt Romney said, “I wouldn’t presume to present a plan different from that of the President. But I believe he was right to take on the war on terror on an aggressive front rather than a defensive front.” [FOX New, O’Reilly Factor, 9/27/06]Romney Pointed To Bush’s Prescription Drug Program As Proof The Bush Administration Dealt With Important Issues, And Called It “Landmark Legislation.” “CNBC host Gloria Borger asked Romney, “I think Senator Kennedy's point is, though, there are all these other issues, these important issues that need to be dealt with. Why are we dealing with this now?” Romney later replied, “Gov. ROMNEY: We're big men and women. We're able to deal with more than one issue at a time. And actually we just passed, as the senator well knows, an enormous prescription drug program which took years in the making, and it's something which he initially supported, ultimately didn't, but landmark legislation in that regard.” [CNBC News Transcripts, 7/14/04]Washington Post’s Ezra Klein: Ryan’s Votes Didn’t Show Evidence Of Fiscal Responsibility - “He Voted For The George W. Bush Tax Cuts, As Well As The War In Iraq And The Unfunded Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit.” “Ryan is also known as having a deep allergy to debt. But such a concern isn’t evident in his voting record. He voted for the George W. Bush tax cuts, as well as the war in Iraq and the unfunded Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit. Perhaps his most ambitious policy proposal prior to his celebrated budgets was the Social Security Personal Savings Guarantee and Prosperity Act of 2005, a plan to privatize Social Security. The program’s actuaries found that Ryan’s plan would require $2.4 trillion in additional costs over the first 10 years, and the Bush administration ultimately dismissed it as ‘irresponsible.’” [Ezra Klein, Washington Post, 8/11/12]Washington Post’s Ezra Klein: Ryan Voted For The Bush Tax Cuts Without Offsets, Voted To Repeal “PayGo,” Voted To Exempt Tax Cuts From Offset Requirements And “Did Not Include Even A Single Offset For The Tax Plan In His Budget.” “He voted for the Bush tax cuts without demanding offsets. He voted to extend the Bush tax cuts without demanding offsets. He voted to repeal the House’s ‘PayGo’ rule, which says both new spending and new tax cuts need to be paid for, and to replace it with the ‘CutGo’ rule, in which spending cuts need to be paid for and tax cuts don’t. And, while he’s told the Congressional Budget Office to assume revenue neutrality, he pointedly did not include even a single offset for the tax plan in his budget.” [Ezra Klein, Washington Post, Wonk Blog, 8/15/12]Ryan Voted For Defense Cuts He Now AttacksRYAN BLAMED PRESIDENT OBAMA FOR POTENTIAL AUTOMATIC DEFENSE CUTS THAT RYAN ENDORSED AS PART OF HIS VOTE FOR THE BUDGET CONTROL ACT THAT HE TOOK A LEADING ROLE IN GETTING PASSED CNN: Ryan Blamed Obama For “Irresponsible Defense Cuts” That He Himself “Helped Guide And Pass Through Congress.” “Mitt Romney’s running mate Paul Ryan blamed President Barack Obama for insisting on ‘irresponsible defense cuts’ during last year’s budget negotiations, which the House Budget Committee chairman, himself, helped guide and pass through Congress. ‘President Obama’s reckless defense cuts that are hanging over our cloud, hanging over the horizon, could put almost 44,000 jobs at stake right here in Pennsylvania. We are not going to let that happen,’ Paul said Tuesday.” [CNN, 8/22/12]Ryan: “I Voted For A Mechanism That Says A Sequester Will Occur If We Don't Cut $1.2 Trillion Spending In Government.” [Ryan Interview, Face The Nation, CBS, 9/9/12]Ryan Worked To Convince Republicans Skeptical Of Voting For The Budget Control Act To Vote For The Bill. “The leadership, having made the debt limit into a rallying cry, was trying to make sure that the newcomers didn’t push too far. ‘Leaders like me would try to tell them: Look, no, really, we think it could be bad,’ Ryan said. ‘They’d look at it with suspicion . . . If there was any semi-credible source saying default wouldn’t be so bad, they clung to that.’ Still, Ryan sympathized with their ardor and desire for change. ‘I was like that when I first got to Congress,’ he said, recalling his time as an angry back-bencher, throwing procedural monkey wrenches into the gears of the House. Ryan told the newcomers that he learned to work within the system without sacrificing his principles, and he tried to convince them that they could do the same. He counseled them to be patient, to accept partial victory.” [Washington Post, 8/7/11]Washington Post Wonkblog: Contrary To Ryan’s Claims, The President Proposed A Budget That Would Avoid The Sequester, But Congress “Kept It From Going Anywhere.” “But Ryan is wrong in stating that Obama has no sequester replacement: ?In fact, the president has proposed a 2013 budget that avoids the sequester’s automatic cuts for all 10 years, while Ryan’s alternative would only?stop the cuts?for 2013…But Congress has kept it from going anywhere:?Both the House and Senate voted down Obama’s budget, but in the Senate, the?0-99 vote?was political theater: Republicans offered up the president’s budget without any of the actual policy language attached, so none of the specifics were actually up for a vote.” [Washington Post Wonkblog, 9/10/12]RYAN CALLED the bill’s passage “a victory” Ryan Called The Budget Control Act “A Victory.” “Ryan voted for the Budget Control Act when it passed, calling it ‘a victory for those committed to controlling government spending and growing our economy.’” [CBS News, 8/23/12]Huffington Post’s Jason Linkins: “It’s Not Just That Ryan Is Denying Voting For The Defense Cuts He Voted For – He’s Denying Voting For The Defense Cuts He Praised As A Necessary Component To A ‘Bipartisan Compromise.’” [Jason Linkins, Huffington Post, 9/10/12]RYAN PROPOSED AUTOMATIC DEFENSE CUTS IN HIS 2010 ROADMAP Washington Post Headline: “Ryan Proposed Automatic Defense Cuts In Earlier Budget Plan” [Washington Post, 9/17/12]Washington Post: “Ryan Himself Proposed To Cap Government Spending And Enforce Those Caps With Automatic Spending Cuts That Would Have Hit The Pentagon.” [Washington Post, 9/17/12]Ryan’s 2010 Roadmap Included A Provision For Automatic Defense Spending Cuts. “As introduced in 2010, Ryan’s ‘Roadmap for America’s Future’ would have created ‘a mechanism to automatically slow the growth in faster-spending entitlement programs’ by requiring the White House budget office ‘to make across-the-board spending reductions in both mandatory and discretionary program’ if overall federal spending breached specified limits. The Defense Department would have been a target for cuts, House Budget Committee aides confirmed Monday, though the impact would have been limited to 1 percent of any agency’s budget.” [Washington Post, 9/17/12]Ryan Rubber-Stamped The Bush Spending SpreeRYAN RUBBER-STAMPED PRESIDENT BUSH’S SPENDINGCNN’s Wolf Blitzer: Ryan Voted For “Some Of The Biggest Expenditures, Some Of The Biggest Expansions Of The Federal Government” During The Bush Administration. BLITZER: “What he didn’t say is the national debt doubled during the eight years of the Bush administration from $5 trillion to $10 trillion. And he also didn’t point out that he as a member of Congress voted for some of the biggest expenditures, some of the biggest expansions of the federal government over those years, including a prescription drug benefit for seniors, including all the trillions of dollars spent in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, all those Defense Department spending as well.” [CNN, 8/29/12]Politico’s Ari Melber: “During 14 Years In Congress, Ryan Consistently And Loyally Voted To Increase The Debt,” Including A “Bush-Era Spending Spree Turned A Surplus Into More Than $6 Trillion In Debt.” “During 14 years in Congress, Ryan consistently and loyally voted to increase the debt. He did not take political risks or buck his party to combat ‘our exploding deficits’ then. Instead, he voted for 65 different pieces of legislation to expand the debt. … The Bush-era spending spree turned a surplus into more than $6 trillion in debt. And Ryan, the GOP’s budget guru and intellectual inspiration, backed those deficit increases a remarkable 90 percent of the time. He also supported each of largest specific drivers of today’s debt: defense spending, tax cuts and Medicare Part D.” [Ari Melber, Politico, 8/28/12]The New Republic’s Jonathan Cohn: “In Fact, This Decade’s Big Deficits Are Primarily A Product Of Bush-Era Tax Cuts And Wars … And You Know Who Voted For Them? Paul Ryan.” “Ryan said “President Obama has added more debt than any other president before him” and proclaimed “We need to stop spending money we don’t have.” In fact, this decade’s big deficits are primarily a product of Bush-era tax cuts and wars. (See graph.) And you know who voted for them? Paul Ryan.” [Jonathan Cohn, The New Republic, 8/29/12]RYAN SUPPORTED THE BUSH TAX CUTSThe New Republic’s Jonathan Cohn: “In Fact, This Decade’s Big Deficits Are Primarily A Product Of Bush-Era Tax Cuts And Wars. … And You Know Who Voted For Them? Paul Ryan.” “Ryan said “President Obama has added more debt than any other president before him” and proclaimed “We need to stop spending money we don’t have.” In fact, this decade’s big deficits are primarily a product of Bush-era tax cuts and wars. (See graph.) And you know who voted for them? Paul Ryan.” [Jonathan Cohn, The New Republic, 8/29/12]2003: Ryan Voted $350 Billion In Tax Breaks Over 11 Years. In 2003, Ryan voted for the bill that would provide $350 billion in tax breaks over 11 years, including a new top tax rate of 15 percent on capital gains and dividends through 2007 and acceleration of income tax cuts enacted in 2001 and scheduled to take effect in 2006.[HR 2, Vote #225, 5/23/03]2001: Ryan Supported Budget Busting Tax Cut For The Wealthy, Reducing Taxes By $1.35 Trillion Through 2010 And Raided Billions From Social Security. In 2001, Ryan voted in favor of the Bush tax cut package that reduced taxes by $1.35 trillion through 2010 through income tax cuts, relief of the marriage penalty, a phase-out of the federal estate tax doubling the child tax credit, and providing incentives for retirement savings. Critics of the bill warned that the tax cut was too large and would jeopardize future Social Security benefits. According to the Wall Street Journal, the entire Social Security Trust Fund will be used “to fund the government over the next two years,” while “well over $100 billion of Social Security funds in each of the following three years” will be used for other purposes. Over the next ten years, more than $1.8 trillion of the Social Security Trust Funds will be spent on other purposes. The bill passed 240-154. [HR 1836, Vote #149, 5/26/01; Wall Street Journal, 2/5/02; Congressional Budget Office; Campaign for America’s Future]Robert Novak: Ryan Was Considered To Be Among The “Most Enthusiastic Congressional Supporters Of President Bush’s Proposed Tax Cut,” And Wanted Even Larger Cuts. “The most enthusiastic congressional supporters of President Bush’s proposed tax cut consider it much too small, but that’s not all. … ‘It’s too small,’ Rep. Paul Ryan, of Wisconsin, the most junior member of the Ways and Means Committee but a leading House supply-sider, told me. ‘It’s not big enough to fit all the policy we want.’ A plan by Ryan and Rep. Patrick Toomey of Pennsylvania proposes deeper and faster income tax rate cuts and capital gains tax reductions. They also back individual pension reform, which might promote more economic growth than would rate cuts.” [Robert Novak op-ed, Augusta Chronicle, 2/24/01]RYAN LOBBIED FELLOW REPUBLICANS FOR BUSH’S $1 TRILLION MEDICARE PART D PROPOSALNew York Magazine’s Jonathan Chait: Ryan “Lobbied Republicans To Pass Bush’s Deficit-Financed Prescription Drug Benefit, Which Bestowed Huge Profits On The Pharmaceutical And Insurance Industries.” [Jonathan Chait, New York Magazine, 4/29/12]Ryan Supported Prescription Drug Plan Known As Medicare Part D. In 2003, Ryan voted in favor of the Medicare prescription drug plan, which created a new entitlement known as Medicare Part D. [HR 1, Vote #669, 11/22/03; Associated Press, 11/26/03]Medicare?Part D?Created The “Doughnut Hole, A Coverage Gap … That Meant Seniors Had To Pay 100 Percent Of Their Drug Costs Until They Met A Certain Spending Level In Any One Year.” Medicare?Part D?“created the ‘doughnut hole,’ a coverage gap in the middle of the Part D benefit, which meant some seniors had to pay 100 percent of their drug costs until they met a certain spending level in any one year.” [Sarasota Herald Tribune, 1/25/12]Medicare Part D Estimated to Cost Nearly $1 Trillion Over 10 Years.?Reported the New York Times, “In July, the Bush administration estimated that payments to private plans offering the Medicare drug benefit would total $1.077 trillion from 2007 to 2016. Officials now estimate they will be $964 billion.” [New York Times,?1/7/07]RYAN VOTED FOR THE WARS IN IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN, ECHOING BUSH’S FOREIGN POLICY AGENDAMSNBC’s David Gregory: Ryan “Did Not Stand Up To The Bush Administration On Two Wars, On Major Areas Of Entitlements.” GREGORY: “There is a kind of ideological amnesia here on the part of Paul Ryan. He represents this new generation, a new strain of the Republican Party, which at its core is about fiscal rectitude and responsibility, and yet he did not stand up to the Bush administration on two wars, on major areas of entitlements, as Tom suggested on the prescription drug benefit. All of those conservatives who thought the Bush administration was responsible for profligate spending – this was not somebody who stood up against that. And yet there’s no mention of that.” [MSNBC, 8/29/12]Ryan Supported Use Of Military Force after 9/11. On September 14, 2001, Ryan voted in favor of a resolution (HJRes 64) that authorized the use of the Armed Forces against those responsible for the 9/11 terrorist attacks. The resolution passed 420-1. [H J Res 64, Vote #342, 9/14/01; CQ Floor Votes, 9/14/01]Ryan Voted In Favor Of The Iraq War Resolution, Which Authorized Use Of Force. In October 2002, Ryan voted in favor of President Bush’s resolution allowing him to declare war on Iraq. The resolution granted Bush with sweeping powers. It authorized use of “all means that he determines to be appropriate, including force,” to enforce U.N. Security Council Resolutions; “defend the national security interests of the United States against the threat posed by Iraq;” and “restore international peace and security in the region.” The resolution authorized President Bush to use the armed forces “as he determines to be necessary and appropriate” to defend the nation against “the continuing threat posed by Iraq” and to enforce “all relevant” United Nations Security Council resolutions on Iraq. It required President Bush to report to Congress within 48 hours of any military action. The resolution encouraged the president to try to work through the United Nations before acting alone thought it left him with broad latitude. The resolution passed 296-133. [HJR?114, Vote #455,?10/10/02; Navy Times, 9/30/02]American Conservative’s Daniel Larison: “On Foreign Policy, Paul Ryan Truly Is A Product Of The Era Of George W. Bush.” “‘On foreign policy, Paul Ryan truly is a product of the era of George W. Bush,’ added the American Conservative's Daniel Larison this week.” [Huffington Post, 8/14/12]RYAN VOTED IN FAVOR OF THE FINANCIAL BAILOUT BILL, WHICH HE HELPED WRITERyan Voted In Favor Of Final Financial Bailout Bill. In 2008, Ryan voted in favor of a bill that gave a historic rescue to the financial industry. The bill specifically allowed the Treasury Department to buy up to $700 billion in troubled assets, the largest government intervention in the financial market since the Great Depression. The measure was similar to a previous piece of legislation (HR 3997) but included significant restrictions on the Treasury program, including parceling out the money in installments, limiting executive compensation at participating firms and establishing a government insurance plan for asset-backed securities, paid for by financial institutions. The bill passed 263-171. [HR 1424, Vote #681, 10/3/08; CQ Today, 10/3/08]Ryan: “I Helped Write The Legislation That Created The TARP.” “REP. RYAN: Well, I helped write the legislation that created the TARP. Now, the equity injections is my least-preferential option. But as they got these reverse auctions up and running or as they got this asset-purchase program up and running, they realized that they needed to get capital into the system quickly. That’s why they did this equity-injection program. The equity-injection program is beginning to work because look at the thawing in the credit markets, look at the LIBOR spreads. They’re beginning to thaw a little bit. It’s beginning to work a little bit. Let’s see what the insurance program, the asset-purchase program does when the TARP is fully implemented. And we just might see a thawing of this credit crisis. That’s what is the difference between a mild recession and a deep recession, in my opinion.” [Ryan interview, “CNBC Reports,” CNBC, 11/10/08]Ryan Felt “Miserable” About His Spending Votes, Which Erased The Clinton-Era SurplusRYAN STATED THAT HE WAS “MISERABLE” DURING THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION AND REGRETTED THE BIG SPENDING FOR WHICH HE VOTEDNew Yorker: Ryan Said “As A Fiscal Conservative, He Was ‘Miserable During The Last Majority’ And Is Determined ‘To Do Everything I Can To Make Sure I Don’t Feel That Misery Again.’” “Ryan won his seat in 1998, at the age of twenty-eight. Like many young conservatives, he is embarrassed by the Bush years. At the time, as a junior member with little clout, Ryan was a reliable Republican vote for policies that were key in causing enormous federal budget deficits: sweeping tax cuts, a costly prescription-drug entitlement for Medicare, two wars, the multibillion-dollar bank-bailout legislation known as TARP. In all, five trillion dollars was added to the national debt. In 2006 and 2008, many of Ryan’s older Republican colleagues were thrown out of office as a result of lobbying scandals and overspending. Ryan told me recently that, as a fiscal conservative, he was ‘miserable during the last majority” and is determined “to do everything I can to make sure I don’t feel that misery again.’” [New Yorker, 8/6/12]National Journal: “Ryan Has Often Said That He Regretted The Big Spending During The Bush Era And That He Often Cast Votes That He Regretted.” “Ryan has often said that he regretted the big spending during the Bush era and that he often cast votes that he regretted. But that doesn’t belie the fact that Ryan, despite his reputation as a fiscal hawk, has voted for some pricey items over the years that have added to the debt burden of the United States.” [National Journal, 8/15/12]RECORD SURPLUSES TURNED INTO RECORD DEFICITS UNDER BUSH ADMINISTRATION POLICIES, AND JOB GROWTH WAS WEAKIn January 2009, The Congressional Budget Office Projected A Nearly $1.2 Trillion Deficit For 2009 And Deficits In Subsequent Years. In its January 2009 Budget and Economic Outlook, the Congressional Budget Officeprojected a $1.186 trillion deficit for 2009 and deficits in subsequent years. [Congressional Budget Office, Table 4, January 2009]White House Office Of Management And Budget Historical Tables Show That The Deficit Had Not Exceeded $1 Trillion Prior To 2009. [White House Office Of Management And Budget, Table 1.1, accessed 9/20/12]According To The Department Of Treasury, Bush-Era Tax Cuts Added $3 Trillion To The Deficit Through 2011. [U.S. Department Of Treasury,?2/19/12]Washington Post Editorial Headline: “Bush Tax Cuts Helped The Rich Get Richer.” [Editorial, Washington Post, 1/16/12]Washington Post Editorial: Bush Tax Cuts Widened Gap Between Rich And Poor. “A report by the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service shows that, between 1996 and 2006, the share of total after-tax income attributable to dividends and capital gains grew by 40 percent, faster than any other category. Earned mostly by the well-to-do, investment income was the largest contributor to the increase in income inequality between 1996 and 2006, according to CRS. The tax cuts enacted at the urging of President George W. Bush magnified what CRS calls the ‘disequalizing’ impact of this shift.” [Editorial, Washington Post, 1/16/12]CBS News Headline: “Study: Bush Tax Cuts Favor Wealthy.” [CBS News, 2/11/09]CBS News: Bush Tax Cuts “Have Shifted More Of The Tax Burden From The Nation’s Rich To Middle-Class Families.” “President Bush's tax cuts since 2001 have shifted more of the tax burden from the nation's rich to middle-class families, according to a study released Friday by the Congressional Budget Office[…]People in the top 20 percent of incomes, averaging $182,700 a year, saw their share of federal taxes decline from 65.3 percent of total payments in 2001 to 63.5 percent this year, according to the study by congressional budget analysts. In contrast, middle-class taxpayers — with incomes ranging from $51,500 to $75,600 — bear a greater tax burden. Those making an average of $75,600 had the biggest jump in their share of taxes, from 18.5 percent of all payments in 2001 to 19.5 percent this year.” [CBS News, 2/11/09]Between January 2001 And January 2008, The Economy Lost 646,000 Private Sector Jobs. According to Bureau Of Labor Statistics data, U.S. private sector employment was 111,631,000, and declined to 110,985,000 by January 2009, declining by 646,000 jobs. [Bureau Of Labor Statistics, accessed 9/7/12]ECONOMY& JOBSPRO-POTUSToplines – General Job CreationUNDER PRESIDENT OBAMA’S LEADERSHIP, THE ECONOMY HAS GONE FROM LOSING 800,000 JOBS A MONTH TO ADDING?5.2 MILLION? PRIVATE SECTOR JOBS OVER THE LAST 31 MONTHSThe U.S. Economy Has Added 5.2 Million Private Sector Jobs In The Last 31 Months.?In February 2010, the U.S. economy employed 106,773,000 people in the private sector. In September 2012, the U.S. economy employed 111,952,000 people in the private sector, gaining 5,179,000 jobs over the 31 month period, including the CES preliminary benchmark revision to March 2012 data. [Current Employment Statistics, Bureau Of Labor Statistics, accessed?10/5/12; CES Preliminary Benchmark Announcement, Bureau Of Labor Statistics, 9/27/12]Private Sector Job Growth Has Continued For 31 Consecutive Months. [Bureau of Labor Statistics, accessed?10/5/12]The Unemployment Rate Is Lower Than At Any Time Since January 2009. [Bureau of Labor Statistics, accessed?10/5/12]When President Obama Took Office The Economy Was Losing 800,000 Jobs A Month. According to Bureau of Labor Statistics data, the average of nonfarm job losses in January 2009, March 2009, and February 2009 totals 780,000. [Bureau of Labor Statistics, accessed 9/4/12]See the jobs chart HEREToplines – ManufacturingUNDER PRESIDENT OBAMA, AMERICAN MANUFACTURERS HAVE ADDED JOBS FOR THE FIRST TIME SINCE THE LATE 1990s AND HAVE GAINED 459,000 JOBS SINCE JANUARY 2010?New York Times: “[Until 2010] There Had Not Been A Single Year When Manufacturing Employment Rose Since 1997.” “When the Labor Department reports December employment numbers on Friday, it is expected that manufacturing companies will have added jobs in two consecutive years. Until last year, there had not been a single year when manufacturing employment rose since 1997.” [New York Times, 1/5/12]The U.S. Manufacturing Sector Has Added 459,000 Jobs Since January 2010.?In January 2010, the U.S. manufacturing sector employed 11,458,000 people. In September 2012, the U.S. manufacturing sector employed 11,917,000 people, for a gain of 459,000 jobs including the CES preliminary benchmark revision to March 2012 data. [Current Employment Statistics, Bureau Of Labor Statistics, accessed?10/5/12; CES Preliminary Benchmark Announcement, Bureau Of Labor Statistics, 9/27/12]The Auto Rescue Saved Over A Million JobsTHE AUTO RESCUE SAVED OVER A MILLION JOBS, THE AUTO INDUSTRY HAS CREATED NEARLY A QUARTER OF A MILLION JOBS SINCE, AND THE BIG THREE ARE ALL PROFITABLE FOR THE FIRST TIME IN YEARSCenter For Automotive Research: The Auto Industry Rescue Saved Over 1.1 Million Jobs In 2009. According to a report on the? difference between orderly bankruptcy proceedings assisted by government-provided debtor-in-possession financing versus an uncontrolled bankruptcy for American automakers, the Center for Automotive Research estimates that emergency loans to American automakers saved 1.14 million jobs in 2009. [Center for Automotive Research Report, 11/7/10]Since Chrysler And GM Retooled In June 2009, The American Auto Industry Has Added Over 246,000 Jobs. ?According to Bureau of Labor Statistics Current Employment Statistics surveydata, motor vehicle and parts manufacturing and motor vehicle and parts retail trade sectors employed 2,252,100 Americans in June 2009. In September 2012, these sectors employed 2,498,400 Americans – an increase of 246,300 jobs. [Bureau Of Labor Statistics Current Employment Statistics Survey Database, Accessed 10/5/12]2011 Marked The First Time In Seven Years That All The Big Three Automakers Were Profitable.?“General Motors reported a record annual profit Thursday, just two years after the nation's largest automaker emerged from bankruptcy with the help of a federal bailout. With rivals Ford Motor (F, Fortune 500) and Chrysler Group having already reported profits for last year, 2011 marked the first time since 2004 that all three major U.S. automakers were profitable at the same time.” [CNN Money,?2/16/12]Under President Obama’s Leadership, The Economy Is RecoveringFOUR YEARS AGO THIS MONTH IN OCTOBER, THE ECONOMY WAS IN A FREE FALL…In October 2008, The Economy Lost 489,000 Jobs. According to Bureau Of Labor Statistics data, the economy lost 489,000 nonfarm jobs in October 2008. [Current Employment Statistics, Bureau Of Labor Statistics, accessed 9/20/12]In October 2008, Consumer Confidence Fell To Its Lowest Level In At Least 40 Years. “Consumer confidence fell to its lowest level in at least 40 years, a survey said Tuesday, as falling home prices and steep declines in the stock market took a sharp toll on the faith of Americans in the economy.” [New York Times, 10/29/08]In October 2008, Sales Of New Cars And Trucks Plummeted To Levels Not Seen In 25 Years. “Sales of new cars and trucks in the United States plummeted in October to levels not seen in the auto industry in 25 years. The stunning fall-off affected all automakers, as shaky consumer confidence and the inability of many eager shoppers to get loans because of tight credit drove sales down 31.9 percent during the month compared with the same period last year.” [New York Times, 11/4/08]October 2008: The Case-Shiller Index Showed That Home Prices Fell 18% From Where They Were A Year Before. “Home prices posted another record decline in October, falling 18% compared with a year earlier, according to a closely watched report released Tuesday.? The 20-city S&P Case-Shiller index has posted losses for a staggering 27 months in a row. In October, 14 of the 20 cities set fresh price decline records.” [CNN Money, 12/30/08]In The Fourth Quarter Of 2008, Gross Domestic Product Contracted By 8.9 Percent. [Bureau Of Economic Analysis, 7/26/12]Economic Policy Institute: The Economic Contraction In The Fourth Quarter Of 2008 Was The Worst In 60 Years. “The economy had already lost 4.5 million jobs before President Barack Obama took office in January 2009, with job losses that month alone surging to 818,000. Economic contraction had also accelerated, reaching a staggering 8.9 percent annualized decline in the fourth quarter of 2008—the worst in 60 years.” [Economic Policy Institute, 3/21/12]National Federation Of Independent Business: “Because Of The Slowdown In The Economy, The Credit Worthiness Of Many Potential Borrowers Has Deteriorated Over The Last Year, Leading To More Difficult Terms And Higher Loan Rejection Rates.” “Because of the slowdown in the economy, the credit worthiness of many potential borrowers has deteriorated over the last year, leading to more difficult terms and higher loan rejection rates (even with no change in lending standards)…The net percent reporting all borrowing needs satisfied fell a point to 24 percent (the low for the series is 22 percent, reached in 1993 when the question was first asked). [NFIB Small Business Trends, March 2009]…BUT UNDER PRESIDENT OBAMA’S LEADERSHIP, OUR ECONOMY IS RECOVERINGUNDER PRESIDENT OBAMA’S LEADERSHIP, THE ECONOMY HAS ADDED 5.2 MILLION PRIVATE SECTOR JOBS OVER THE LAST 31 MONTHSThe U.S. Economy Has Added 5.2 Million Private Sector Jobs In The Last 31 Months.?In February 2010, the U.S. economy employed 106,773,000 people in the private sector. In September 2012, the U.S. economy employed 111,952,000 people in the private sector, gaining 5,179,000 jobs over the 31 month period, including the CES preliminary benchmark revision to March 2012 data. [Current Employment Statistics, Bureau Of Labor Statistics, accessed?10/5/12; CES Preliminary Benchmark Announcement, Bureau Of Labor Statistics, 9/27/12]Private Sector Job Growth Has Continued For 31 Consecutive Months. [Bureau of Labor Statistics, accessed?10/5/12]AMERICAN MANUFACTURERS HAVE ADDED JOBS FOR THE FIRST TIME SINCE THE LATE 1990s, AND THE AUTO INDUSTRY HAS ADDED NEARLY 250,000 JOBS ?New York Times: “[Until 2010] There Had Not Been A Single Year When Manufacturing Employment Rose Since 1997.” “When the Labor Department reports December employment numbers on Friday, it is expected that manufacturing companies will have added jobs in two consecutive years. Until last year, there had not been a single year when manufacturing employment rose since 1997.” [New York Times, 1/5/12]The U.S. Manufacturing Sector Has Added 459,000 Jobs Since January 2010.?In January 2010, the U.S. manufacturing sector employed 11,458,000 people. In September 2012, the U.S. manufacturing sector employed 11,917,000 people, for a gain of 459,000 jobs including the CES preliminary benchmark revision to March 2012 data. [Current Employment Statistics, Bureau Of Labor Statistics, accessed?10/5/12; CES Preliminary Benchmark Announcement, Bureau Of Labor Statistics, 9/27/12]Since Chrysler And GM Retooled In June 2009, The American Auto Industry Has Added Over 246,000 Jobs. ?According to Bureau of Labor Statistics Current Employment Statistics surveydata, motor vehicle and parts manufacturing and motor vehicle and parts retail trade sectors employed 2,252,100 Americans in June 2009. In September 2012, these sectors employed 2,498,400 Americans – an increase of 246,300 jobs. [Bureau Of Labor Statistics Current Employment Statistics Survey Database, Accessed 10/5/12]THE UNEMPLOYMENT RATE IS LOWER THAN AT ANYTIME SINCE PRESIDENT OBAMA TOOK OFFICE, CONSUMER CONFIDENCE IS AT A FIVE YEAR HIGH, AUTO SALES AND SMALL BUSINESS LENDING ARE UP AND FORECLOSURES ARE AT A FIVE YEAR LOWThe Unemployment Rate Is Lower Than At Any Time Since January 2009. [Bureau of Labor Statistics, accessed?10/5/12]In October 2012, Consumer Confidence Rose To The Highest Level Since Before The Recession Began. “Confidence among U.S. consumers unexpectedly jumped in October to the highest level since before the recession began five years ago, raising the odds that retailers will see sales improve. The Thomson Reuters/University of Michigan preliminary October 14, 2012 consumer?sentiment?index increased to 83.1, the highest level since September 2007, from 78.3 the prior month. The gauge was projected to fall to 78, according to the median forecast of 71 economists surveyed by Bloomberg News.” [Bloomberg News,10/12/12]September 2012: U.S. Car Buyers Flooded Showrooms, Sending Auto Sales To Their Highest Level In More Than Four Years.“U.S. car buyers flooded showrooms in September, sending auto sales to their highest level in more than four years… The last time sales reached this level was February 2008, before gas prices surged and the financial meltdown caused a deep, sustained drop in auto sales. “[CNN Money, 10/2/12]According To The Thompson Reuters/PayNet Small Business Lending Index, Small Business Lending Was Up 33 Percent In August 2012 Compared To January 2009. The Thompson Reuters/PayNet Small Business Lending Index increased from 82.1 in January 2009 to 109.9 in August 2012, a 33 percent increase. [Thompson Reuters/PayNet Small Business Lending Index historical data, accessed 10/13/12]August 2012: President Obama’s Efforts To Assist Struggling Homeowners Helped Drive Foreclosures To A Five-Year Low. “. Foreclosure filings -- including default notices, scheduled auctions and bank repossessions -- were reported on 180,427 properties in September, a 7% decline from August and down more than 16% from a year earlier, according to a report released Thursday by RealtyTrac, an online marketer of foreclosed properties. That's the lowest number of filings since September 2007… Part of the reason for theoverall improvement is that the government's and the banks' efforts to prevent homeowners from falling into foreclosure have taken hold. The government sponsored Home Affordable Modification Program has helped more than a million borrowers obtain more affordable mortgages.” [CNN Money, 10/11/12]Context: Jobs Losses And Eroding Middle Class Security Before President ObamaTook OfficeMIDDLE CLASS SECURITY HAD BEEN ERODING IN THE DECADE BEFORE THE RECESSION, WEIGHED DOWN BY POLICIES THAT FAVORED THE WEALTHY, SLUGGISH JOB GROWTH AND GROWING DEBT AND DEFICITSSince 2000, The Middle Class Has Shrunken In Size And Fallen Backwards In Income And Wealth. “As the 2012 presidential candidates prepare their closing arguments to America’s middle class, they are courting a group that has endured a lost decade for economic well-being. Since 2000, the middle class has shrunk in size, fallen backward in income and wealth, and shed some—but by no means all—of its characteristic faith in the future.” [Pew Research Center, 8/22/12]The Middle Class Lost $16 Trillion In Wealth From 2007 To The Beginning Of 2009. From the Federal Reserve’s data, total net worth – balance sheet of households and nonprofit organizations declined from $67.3 trillion in Q3 of 2007 at its peak through its trough at $51.1 trillion in Q1 of 2009 – a loss of $16.2 trillion. [Federal Reserve Economic Data, accessed 10/11/12]Fifty Nine Percent Of The Shift From Surplus To Deficit By 2011 Is Directly Attributable To Bush Administration Policies And Twenty Nine Is Due To Updated Economic And Demographic Shifts, While Only 12 Percent Is Attributable To Obama Administration Policies.?According to the Department of Treasury, in January 2001, CBO projected cumulative surpluses would total $5.9 trillion through 2011. Instead, cumulative deficits have totaled $6 trillion. A U.S. treasury analysis based on CBO data shows that fifty-nine percent of the shift from surpluses to deficits is attributable to Bush administration policies including Bush-era tax cuts, the wars in Iran and Afghanistan, changes to Medicare Part D, and other spending. Twenty nine percent of the shift from surpluses to deficits is attributable to conditions unrelated to legislation, including updated economic and demographic projections. Twelve percent is attributable to Obama administration policies, including the Recovery Act, the December 2010 tax law, and other spending and tax cuts. [U.S. Department Of Treasury Calculations Based On Congressional Budget Office Data, U.S. Department Of Treasury,?2/19/12]According To The Department Of Treasury, Bush-Era Tax Cuts Added $3 Trillion To The Deficit Through 2011. [U.S. Department Of Treasury,?2/19/12]The Bush Tax Cuts Disproportionately Benefited The Wealthy. “The Bush-era tax cuts conferred disproportionate benefits on those at the top of the earnings distribution, exacerbating a trend of widening income inequality. In 2010, the top 1% of earners (i.e., tax filers making over $645,000) received 38% of the breaks in the 2001-08 tax changes; 55% of the tax breaks went to the top 10% of earners (those making over $170,000). The top 0.1% of earners (i.e., making over $3 million) received an average tax cut of roughly $520,000, more than 450 times larger than the share received by an average middle-income family.” [Economic Policy Institute, 6/1/11]Between January 2001 And January 2009, The Economy Lost 646,000 Private Sector Jobs. According to Bureau Of Labor Statistics data, U.S. private sector employment was 111,631,000, and declined to 110,985,000 by January 2009, declining by 646,000 jobs. [Bureau Of Labor Statistics, accessed 9/7/12]Between January 2001 And January 2009, The Economy lost 4.56 Million Manufacturing Jobs. According To Bureau of Labor Statistics data, the U.S. manufacturing sector employed 17,112,000 people in January 2001 and 12,552,000 people in January 2009, a decline of 4,560,000. [Bureau Of Labor Statistics, accessed 10/9/12]In January 2009, The Congressional Budget Office Projected A Nearly $1.2 Trillion Deficit For 2009 And Deficits In Subsequent Years. In its January 2009 Budget and Economic Outlook, the Congressional Budget Officeprojected a $1.186 trillion deficit for 2009 and deficits in subsequent years. [Congressional Budget Office, Table 4, January 2009]White House Office Of Management And Budget Historical Tables Show That The Deficit Had Not Exceeded $1 Trillion Prior To 2009. [White House Office Of Management And Budget, Table 1.1, accessed 9/20/12]FOUR YEARS AGO THIS MONTH IN OCTOBER, THE ECONOMY WAS IN A FREE FALLIn October 2008, The Economy Lost 489,000 Jobs. According to Bureau Of Labor Statistics data, the economy lost 489,000 nonfarm jobs in October 2008. [Current Employment Statistics, Bureau Of Labor Statistics, accessed 9/20/12]In October 2008, Consumer Confidence Fell To Its Lowest Level In At Least 40 Years. “Consumer confidence fell to its lowest level in at least 40 years, a survey said Tuesday, as falling home prices and steep declines in the stock market took a sharp toll on the faith of Americans in the economy.” [New York Times, 10/29/08]In October 2008, Sales Of New Cars And Trucks Plummeted To Levels Not Seen In 25 Years. “Sales of new cars and trucks in the United States plummeted in October to levels not seen in the auto industry in 25 years. The stunning fall-off affected all automakers, as shaky consumer confidence and the inability of many eager shoppers to get loans because of tight credit drove sales down 31.9 percent during the month compared with the same period last year. The grim results — particularly for?General Motors, whose sales dropped by 45 percent during the month — raised new concerns about the chances of survival for Detroit’s troubled Big Three.” [New York Times, 11/4/08]October 2008: The Case-Shiller Index Showed That Home Prices Fell 18% From Where They Were A Year Before. “Home prices posted another record decline in October, falling 18% compared with a year earlier, according to a closely watched report released Tuesday.? The 20-city S&P Case-Shiller index has posted losses for a staggering 27 months in a row. In October, 14 of the 20 cities set fresh price decline records.” [CNN Money, 12/30/08]In The Fourth Quarter Of 2008, Gross Domestic Product Contracted By 8.9 Percent. [Bureau Of Economic Analysis, 7/26/12]Economic Policy Institute: The Economic Contraction In The Fourth Quarter Of 2008 Was The Worst In 60 Years. “The economy had already lost 4.5 million jobs before President Barack Obama took office in January 2009, with job losses that month alone surging to 818,000. Economic contraction had also accelerated, reaching a staggering 8.9 percent annualized decline in the fourth quarter of 2008—the worst in 60 years.” [Economic Policy Institute, 3/21/12]Following Efforts To Prevent AIG’s Failure, NBC News Anchor Brian Williams Said The Financial Collapse Was Perhaps “The Worst Financial Collapse Since The Great Depression.” “This was the day after what may some day be called black Monday on Wall Street because it was perhaps the?worst financial collapse since the Great Depression.?And this day after was devoted, at least in the business world, to preventing the failure of a company so big, if it goes, some people fear big parts of the US economy, even the global economy, will go with it. Company's called AIG. It's an insurance company and a whole lot more. It's in big trouble. They need money, which nobody has to give right about now.” [Brian Williams, NBC News Transcript, 9/16/2008]IN THE SIX MONTHS BEFORE PRESIDENT OBAMA TOOK OFFICE, THE COUNTRY LOST THREE AND A HALF MILLION JOBS—800,000 DURING THE MONTH HE WAS SWORN IN In The Six Months Before President Obama’s First Full Month In Office, The Economy Lost Nearly 3.5 Million Jobs. According to Bureau Of Labor Statistics data, job losses in the six months before President Obama’s first full month in office, the economy lost 3,477,000 nonfarm jobs: August 2008 (-247,000), September 2008 (-432,000), October 2008 (-489,000), November 2008 (-803,000), December 2008 (-661,000), January 2009 (-818,000). [Current Employment Statistics, Bureau Of Labor Statistics, accessed 8/22/12]The Month President Obama Took Office, The Economy Lost 818,000 Nonfarm Jobs. According to Bureau Of Labor Statistics data, the economy lost 818,000 nonfarm jobs in January 2009. [Current Employment Statistics, Bureau Of Labor Statistics, accessed 8/23/12]ECONOMISTS PREDICTED AN “UNPRECEDENTED” FINANCIAL CRISISFederal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke In March 2009: “The World Is Suffering Through The?Worst?Financial Crisis Since The 1930s.” “Mr. BEN BERNANKE (Federal Reserve Chairman): The world is suffering through the?worst?financial crisis since the 1930s.” [Remarks By Ben Bernanke On A Council On Foreign Relations Meeting, 3/10/09]Bush Treasury Secretary Paulson In September 2008: “These Are Unprecedented Times For The American People And Our Economy.” “SEC.?PAULSON: Mr. Chairman, I thank you. A note of levity always helps. First of all, thank you very much. Thank you, Congressman Bachus, members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. I appreciate that we are here to discuss an?unprecedented?program, but these are?unprecedented?times for the American people and our economy. I also appreciate that Congress and the administration are working closely together, and we have been for a number of days now, so that we can help the American people by quickly enacting a program to stabilize our financial system. We must do so in order to avoid a continuing serial (sic) of financial institution failures and frozen credit markets that threaten American families' financial well-being, the viability of businesses both small and large, and the very health of our economy.” [Hearing Of The House Financial Services Committee, 9/24/08]Moody’s Analytics In January 2009: “The Economy Appears Headed Toward Its Worst Downturn Since The Great Depression.” “The global financial system has effectively collapsed, undermining investor, household and business confidence, and pushing the economy into a lengthy and severe recession. Real GDP, employment, industrial production and retail sales are falling sharply, and unemployment is rising quickly. Policymakers are working to implement a large fiscal stimulus package; yet even with such stimulus, the economy appears headed toward its worst downturn since the Great Depression.” [Moody’s Analytics, 1/21/09]Paul Krugman In January 2009: “Will We In Fact Do What’s Necessary To Prevent Great Depression II?” “Here’s my nightmare scenario: It takes Congress months to pass a stimulus plan, and the legislation that actually emerges is too cautious. As a result, the economy plunges for most of 2009, and when the plan finally starts to kick in, it’s only enough to slow the descent, not stop it. Meanwhile, deflation is setting in, while businesses and consumers start to base their spending plans on the expectation of a permanently depressed economy — well, you can see where this is going. So this is our moment of truth. Will we in fact do what’s necessary to prevent Great Depression II?” [Paul Krugman, New York Times, 1/5/09]Economist James Galbraith: “There Are Many Good Reasons” To Think That We Are “In A True Financial Crisis Of The Type In The 1930s.” “The stimulus package is an impressive feat of fast drafting, progressive principle and good politics. It should pass and it will help. But given the depth of the crisis and the lock-up of the financial system, it is not an end-point, only a start. If we are in a true financial crisis of the type in the 1930s — and there are many good reasons to think that we are — then the approach of a short-term stimulus combined with troubled-asset relief will not do the whole job.” [Opinion, James Galbraith, New York Times, 1/28/08]Validators: The United States Is Better Off Than When President Obama Took OfficeTHE UNITED STATES IS “UNQUESTIONABLY BETTER OFF” THAN WHEN PRESIDENT OBAMA TOOK OFFICENew York Times Editorial: “The Country Is Unquestionably Better Off Than It Was In 2008.” “There is really no reason for any hesitancy. The country is unquestionably better off than it was in 2008. The economy has added 4.5 million private-sector jobs?since January 2010; even if you subtract the vast job losses in the early months of President Obama’s term, before his policies went into effect, the country is still ahead by 332,000 private-sector jobs.” [Editorial, New York Times, 9/6/12]Washington Post Wonkblog: Ryan’s Claim That Obama “Can’t Tell You You’re Better Off” Is “Difficult To Substantiate” Since “By Just About Every Metric, The Economy Is Doing Better Than It Was In January 2009.”? “But what about Ryan’s broader claim, that, in his words, Obama “can’t tell you that you’re better off”? It’s difficult to substantiate. By just about every metric, the economy is doing better than it was in January 2009 (that is, of course, a low bar to clear, as the economy was falling off a cliff in January 2009). And while Obama’s tenure has seen consistent, albeit insufficient, economic progress, things actually got much worse over Carter’s tenure.” [Washington Post, WonkBlog, 9/4/12]Economists Betsey Stevenson And Justin Wolfers: “‘Are You Better Off Than You Were Four Years Ago?’ To Anyone Whose Memory Extends A Full Electoral Cycle, The Answer Is Clearly Yes.” “Do you remember the news four years ago? Banks collapsed, markets cratered, companies struggled to make payroll and millions of people lost their jobs. Your retirement savings were decimated,?the value of your house?plunged, credit was unobtainable. Politicians dithered and economists argued. Only confusion prospered. Against this background, it’s surprising to hear Republicans returning to?Ronald Reagan’s classic debate question: ‘Are you better off than you were four years ago?’ To anyone whose memory extends a full electoral cycle, the answer is clearly yes.” [Op-Ed, Betsey Stevenson And Justin Wolfers, 9/10/12]Data Points: The United States Is Better Off Than When President Obama Took OfficeTHE FACTS SHOW THAT THE UNITED STATES IS BETTER OFF THAN WHEN PRESIDENT OBAMA TOOK OFFICEUNDER PRESIDENT OBAMA’S LEADERSHIP, THE ECONOMY HAS GONE FROM LOSING 800,000 JOBS A MONTH TO ADDING?5.2 MILLION?PRIVATE SECTOR JOBS OVER THE LAST 31 MONTHSWhen President Obama Took Office The Economy Was Losing 800,000 Jobs A Month. According to Bureau of Labor Statistics data, the average of nonfarm job losses in January 2009, March 2009, and February 2009 totals 780,000. [Bureau of Labor Statistics, accessed 9/4/12]The U.S. Economy Has Added 5.2 Million Private Sector Jobs In The Last 31 Months.?In February 2010, the U.S. economy employed 106,773,000 people in the private sector. In September 2012, the U.S. economy employed 111,952,000 people in the private sector, gaining 5,179,000 jobs over the 31 month period, including the CES preliminary benchmark revision to March 2012 data. [Current Employment Statistics, Bureau Of Labor Statistics, accessed?10/5/12; CES Preliminary Benchmark Announcement, Bureau Of Labor Statistics, 9/27/12]?Private Sector Job Growth Has Continued For 31 Consecutive Months. [Bureau of Labor Statistics, accessed?10/5/12]The Unemployment Rate Is Lower Than At Any Time Since January 2009. [Bureau of Labor Statistics, accessed?10/5/12]??UNDER PRESIDENT OBAMA, AMERICAN MANUFACTURERS HAVE ADDED JOBS FOR THE FIRST TIME SINCE THE LATE 1990s AND HAVE GAINED 459,000 JOBS SINCE JANUARY 2010?New York Times: “[Until 2010] There Had Not Been A Single Year When Manufacturing Employment Rose Since 1997.” “When the Labor Department reports December employment numbers on Friday, it is expected that manufacturing companies will have added jobs in two consecutive years. Until last year, there had not been a single year when manufacturing employment rose since 1997.” [New York Times, 1/5/12]The U.S. Manufacturing Sector Has Added 459,000 Jobs Since January 2010.?In January 2010, the U.S. manufacturing sector employed 11,458,000 people. In September 2012, the U.S. manufacturing sector employed 11,917,000 people, for a gain of 459,000 jobs including the CES preliminary benchmark revision to March 2012 data. [Current Employment Statistics, Bureau Of Labor Statistics, accessed?10/5/12; CES Preliminary Benchmark Announcement, Bureau Of Labor Statistics, 9/27/12]THE PRESIDENT’S AUTO RESCUE SAVED MORE THAN ONE MILLION JOBS AND THE INDUSTRY HAS SINCE ADDED NEARLY A QUARTER OF A MILLION NEW JOBSCenter For Automotive Research: The Auto Industry Rescue Saved Over 1.1 Million Jobs In 2009, And Over 310,000 Jobs In 2010. “The May results estimated that the outcomes of the orderly bankruptcy proceedings would save 1.28 million jobs in 2009, while the current review estimates slightly lower job savings of 1.14 million jobs. For 2010, original estimates (of orderly bankruptcies vs. unsuccessful proceedings) were that 267,300 jobs would be saved, while the current review estimates that 314,400 jobs were preserved.” [Center for Automotive Research Report, 11/7/10]Since Chrysler And GM Retooled In June 2009, The American Auto Industry Has Added Over 246,000 Jobs. ?According to Bureau of Labor Statistics Current Employment Statistics surveydata, motor vehicle and parts manufacturing and motor vehicle and parts retail trade sectors employed 2,252,100 Americans in June 2009. In September 2012, these sectors employed 2,498,400 Americans – an increase of 246,300 jobs. [Bureau Of Labor Statistics Current Employment Statistics Survey Database, Accessed 10/5/12]IN OCTOBER 2008, THE STOCK MARKET CRASHING, BUT THE DOW JONES INDUSTRIAL AVERAGE HAS MORE THAN DOUBLED UNDER PRESIDENT OBAMAOctober 2008: The U.S. Was In The Midst Of A Stock Market Crash Termed “The Panic Of 2008,” With Unprecedented Day-After-Day Declines. “Market psychology experts weigh in on what's feeding the selling frenzy on Wall Street and when to look for investors' moods to change Searching for a way to describe the current stock market meltdown? Call it the ‘Panic of 2008.’? In the past century, the world has seen countless financial crises, economic downturns, and market crashes. But the last major event to be called a 'panic' was the Panic of 1907. If ever it were appropriate to revive the term ‘panic,’ this is the time. The day-after-day declines in the stock market are unprecedented.” [Businessweek, 10/10/08]Since Its Lowest Point Under President Obama Just Weeks After He Took Office, The Dow Jones Industrial Average Has More Than Doubled. The Dow Jones Industrial average stood at 6,469.95 on March 6th, 2009. The Dow Jones Industrial average stood at 13,579.47 on September 21st, 2012. [Dow Jones Industrial Average Historical Data, Accessed Via , 9/22/12]SINCE APRIL 2009, MORTGAGE MODIFICATIONS HAVE OUTPACED FORECLOSURES, AND FORECLOSURES ARE DOWN TO A FIVE-YEAR LOWSince April 2009, Mortgage Modifications Have Outpaced Foreclosures. Since April 1, 2009, 5.4 million mortgage modifications have been completed – more than the 2.9 million cumulative foreclosures completed in the same time period. [National Housing Scorecard, 8/3/12]August 2012: President Obama’s Efforts To Assist Struggling Homeowners Helped Drive Foreclosures To A Five-Year Low. “The wave of foreclosures hitting the nation's housing market has been much less severe than anticipated, with foreclosure filings at their lowest level in five years last month, according to a report out Thursday. Foreclosure filings -- including default notices, scheduled auctions and bank repossessions -- were reported on 180,427 properties in September, a 7% decline from August and down more than 16% from a year earlier, according to a report released Thursday by RealtyTrac, an online marketer of foreclosed properties. That's the lowest number of filings since September 2007… Part of the reason for theoverall improvement is that the government's and the banks' efforts to prevent homeowners from falling into foreclosure have taken hold. The government sponsored Home Affordable Modification Program has helped more than a million borrowers obtain more affordable mortgages.” [CNN Money, 10/11/12]COMPARED TO FIRST QUARTER OF 2009 – THE QUARTER PRESIDENT OBAMA TOOK OFFICE – BUSINESS START-UP CREATION WAS UP 25,000 PER QUARTER Business Start-Up Creation Was Up 25,000 In The Fourth Quarter Of 2011 Compared With The First Quarter Of 2009. According to Bureau of Labor Statistics Business Employment Dynamics data, the number of private sector establishment births in the first quarter of 2012 was 172,000. The number of private sector establishment births in the fourth quarter of 2011, the most recent data available, was 197,000. [Business Employment Dynamics, Bureau Of Labor Statistics, 8/2/12]MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD INCOME HAS INCREASED OVER THE LAST YEARMedian Household Income Increased $946 Between August 2011 And August 2012. According To Sentier Research, median household income increased $1,176 from $49,732 in August 2011 to $50,678 in August 2012. [Trends In Household Income, Sentier Research, 9/10/12]President Obama Has A Plan To Create One Million New Manufacturing Jobs And Invest In Clean Energy, Job Training, And InfrastructurePRESIDENT OBAMA HAS A PLAN TO PUT MORE PEOPLE BACK TO WORK AND LAY THE FOUNDATION FOR LONG TERM ECONOMIC GROWTHPRESIDENT OBAMA WOULD LOWER RATES AND CUT TAXES FOR BUSINESSES BRINGING JOBS BACK TO THE U.S. OR HIRING NEW WORKERS, WITH THE GOAL OF CREATING ONE MILLION NEW MANUFACTURING JOBS BY 2016President Obama Set A Goal Of Creating One Million New Manufacturing Jobs Over The Next Four Years.?“President Barack Obama will set a goal of creating 1 million new manufacturing jobs over the next four years and doubling exports during the next two years, according to?excerpts of his speech?to the Democratic National Convention released Thursday.” [CNN,?9/6/12]President Obama’s Tax Reform Framework Would Effectively Cut The Top Corporate Tax Rate On Manufacturing Income To 25 Percent, With An Even Lower Rate For Advanced Manufacturing Activities. “Effectively cut the top corporate tax rate on manufacturing income to 25 percent and to an even lower rate for income from advanced manufacturing activities by reforming the domestic production activities deduction. Reflecting manufacturing’s key role in innovation and the intense international competition facing the sector, the President’s Framework would reform the current domestic production activities deduction. It would focus the deduction more on manufacturing activity, expand the deduction to 10.7 percent, and increase it even more for advanced manufacturing. This would effectively cut the top corporate tax rate for manufacturing income to 25 percent and even lower for advanced manufacturing.” [The President’s Framework For Tax Reform, February 2012]President Obama’s Tax Reform Framework Removes Tax Deductions For Moving Production Overseas And Provides New Incentives For Bringing Production Back To The United States. “Remove tax deductions for moving productions overseas and provide new incentives for bringing production back to the United States. The tax code currently allows companies moving operations overseas to deduct their moving expenses—and reduce their taxes in the United States as a result. The President is proposing that companies will no longer be allowed to claim tax deductions for moving their operations abroad. At the same time, to help bring jobs home, the President is proposing to give a 20 percent income tax credit for the expenses of moving operations back into the United States.” [The President’s Framework For Tax Reform, February 2012]President Obama Proposed A 10 Percent Income Tax Credit For Hiring New Employees Or Raising The Salaries Of Existing Employees And Proposed Extending 100 Percent Expensing In 2012 For All Businesses. “The president called for passage of proposed legislation that would provide a 10 percent income tax credit for firms that create new jobs or increase wages in 2012 and extends 100 percent expensing in 2012 for all businesses.” [RTT News, 5/16/12]President Obama Created The National Export Initiative To Create Jobs By Putting America On The Path To Doubling Exports By 2015. “[In] order to enhance and coordinate Federal efforts to facilitate the creation of jobs in the United States through the promotion of exports… The NEI will help meet my Administration's goal of doubling exports over the next 5 years by working to remove trade barriers abroad, by helping firms -- especially small businesses -- overcome the hurdles to entering new export markets, by assisting with financing, and in general by pursuing a Government-wide approach to export advocacy abroad, among other steps.” [Executive Order – National Export Initiative, 3/11/10]PRESIDENT OBAMA WOULD INVEST IN CLEAN ENERGY PRODUCTION AND MANUFACTURINGPresident Obama Is Calling On Congress To Extend The Production Tax Credit That Spurs Clean Energy Production By Providing A Tax Credit For The Production Of Clean Energy Like Wind. From a White House fact sheet: “The Production Tax Credit, which expires at the end of 2012, provides a 2.2 cent per kilowatt hour credit for utility scale wind producers. Congress should act to extend the credit. By extending the PTC benefits for American clean energy producers we can avoid layoffs across the country: The wind industry projects that nearly 30,000 jobs will be lost next year if the PTC expires, including direct jobs as well as those in its supply chain.” [White House Fact Sheet, 5/22/12]President Obama Has Called On Congress To Provide An Additional $5 Billion In Tax Credits For Advanced Energy Manufacturing. From a White House fact sheet: “The Advanced Energy Manufacturing Tax Credit provides a 30 percent investment credit to manufacturers who invest in capital equipment to make components for clean energy projects in the U.S., working in tandem with the Production Tax Credit to create jobs and help reduce our dependence on foreign oil and secure a clean energy future for the United States.” [White House Fact Sheet, 5/22/12]PRESIDENT OBAMA WOULD INVEST IN TRAINING WORKERS FOR GOOD-PAYING JOBS AND IN REBUILDING OUR NATIONAL INFRASTRUCTUREThe President Proposed Training Two Million Workers For Good-Paying Jobs Through New Partnerships Between Community Colleges And Businesses. “The bulk of the job-training money would come in an $8-billion ‘Community College to Career Fund,’ which would provide money to community colleges and states to form partnerships with businesses to train an estimated two million workers in high-growth and in-demand areas.” [Chronicle of Higher Education, 02/13/12]President Obama Proposed To Create Jobs By Using Half Of The Savings From Ending Foreign Wars To Rebuild American Infrastructure. To help ensure we have the infrastructure so that companies can ship their goods more efficiently throughout the country and the world, the President is calling for new efforts to revitalize American infrastructure. The President’s plan will protect taxpayer dollars by fixing existing roads and by directing funding to the best projects instead of earmarks, and will continue investments in high-speed rail. To pay for these investments, the President is proposing to use approximately half of the savings that we will achieve from winding down wars in Iraq and Afghanistan over the 6 year period of the infrastructure plan with the other half going towards paying down the debt. The President also announced that within the coming weeks, he will sign an Executive Order clearing the red tape that can slow down new infrastructure projects, accelerating those projects that have already been funded.” [“An America Built To Last,” White House, February 2012] Pushback: Manufacturing Has Lost 582,000 JobsUNDER PRESIDENT OBAMA, MANUFACTURERS HAVE ADDED JOBS FOR THE FIRST TIME SINCE THE 1990s, AND PRESIDENT OBAMA HAS A PLAN TO BUILD ON THIS PROGRESS TO CREATE A MILLION NEW MANUFACTURING JOBSMANUFACTURERS LOST NEARLY 900,000 JOBS DURING PRESIDENT OBAMA’S FIRST SIX FULL MONTHS IN OFFICE Between February 2009 And July 2009, Manufacturers Lost 888,000 Jobs. According to Bureau of Labor Statistics data, the manufacturing sector lost 888,000 jobs between February 2009 and July 2009. [Bureau Of Labor Statistics, accessed 10/1/12]UNDER PRESIDENT OBAMA’S LEADERSHIP, MANUFACTURERS HAVE ADDED JOBS FOR THE FIRST TIME SINCE THE 1990sNew York Times: “[Until 2010] There Had Not Been A Single Year When Manufacturing Employment Rose Since 1997.” “When the Labor Department reports December employment numbers on Friday, it is expected that manufacturing companies will have added jobs in two consecutive years. Until last year, there had not been a single year when manufacturing employment rose since 1997.” [New York Times, 1/5/12]The U.S. Manufacturing Sector Has Added 459,000 Jobs Since January 2010.?In January 2010, the U.S. manufacturing sector employed 11,458,000 people. In September 2012, the U.S. manufacturing sector employed 11,917,000 people, for a gain of 459,000 jobs including the CES preliminary benchmark revision to March 2012 data. [Current Employment Statistics, Bureau Of Labor Statistics, accessed?10/5/12; CES Preliminary Benchmark Announcement, Bureau Of Labor Statistics, 9/27/12]PRESIDENT OBAMA HAS A PLAN TO CREATE ONE MILLION NEW MANUFACTURING JOBS BY THE END OF 2016, BUILDING ON A RECENT TREND OF INSOURCINGPresident Obama Set A Goal Of Creating One Million New Manufacturing Jobs Over The Next Four Years.?“President Barack Obama will set a goal of creating 1 million new manufacturing jobs over the next four years and doubling exports during the next two years, according to?excerpts of his speech?to the Democratic National Convention released Thursday.” [CNN,?9/6/12]The Boston Consulting Group Found That 37 Percent Of Companies Surveyed Planned To Reshore Or Were Actively Considering Reshoring. “In February, Boston Consulting Group surveyed 106 companies with annual sales of $1 billion or more and found that 37% planned to reshore or were ‘actively considering’ it. The MIT survey is more precise in singling out those with definite plans. When asked the broader question of whether they were considering a move to reshore, the MIT study found that 33% of those surveyed said yes.” [Wall Street Journal, 7/18/12]An MIT Study Found That 14 Percent Of U.S. Companies Surveyed “Definitely Plan To Move Some Of Their Manufacturing Back Home— The Latest Sign Of Growing Interest Among Executives In A Strategy Known As ‘Reshoring.’”? “About 14% of U.S. companies surveyed by a Massachusetts Institute of Technology professor definitely plan to move some of their manufacturing back home—the latest sign of growing interest among executives in a strategy known as ‘reshoring.’” [Wall Street Journal, 7/18/12]PRESIDENT OBAMA WOULD REFORM THE CORPORATE TAX CODE TO BRING DOWN TAX RATES, GIVE TAX BREAKS TO COMPANIES THAT BRING JOBS BACK TO THE U.S., AND DOUBLE OUR EXPORTSPresident Obama’s Tax Reform Framework Would Effectively Cut The Top Corporate Tax Rate On Manufacturing Income To 25 Percent, With An Even Lower Rate For Advanced Manufacturing Activities. “Effectively cut the top corporate tax rate on manufacturing income to 25 percent and to an even lower rate for income from advanced manufacturing activities by reforming the domestic production activities deduction. Reflecting manufacturing’s key role in innovation and the intense international competition facing the sector, the President’s Framework would reform the current domestic production activities deduction. It would focus the deduction more on manufacturing activity, expand the deduction to 10.7 percent, and increase it even more for advanced manufacturing. This would effectively cut the top corporate tax rate for manufacturing income to 25 percent and even lower for advanced manufacturing.” [The President’s Framework For Tax Reform, February 2012]President Obama’s Tax Reform Framework Removes Tax Deductions For Moving Production Overseas And Provides New Incentives For Bringing Production Back To The United States. “Remove tax deductions for moving productions overseas and provide new incentives for bringing production back to the United States. The tax code currently allows companies moving operations overseas to deduct their moving expenses—and reduce their taxes in the United States as a result. The President is proposing that companies will no longer be allowed to claim tax deductions for moving their operations abroad. At the same time, to help bring jobs home, the President is proposing to give a 20 percent income tax credit for the expenses of moving operations back into the United States.” [The President’s Framework For Tax Reform, February 2012]President Obama Created The National Export Initiative To Create Jobs By Putting America On The Path To Doubling Exports By 2015. “[In] order to enhance and coordinate Federal efforts to facilitate the creation of jobs in the United States through the promotion of exports… The NEI will help meet my Administration's goal of doubling exports over the next 5 years by working to remove trade barriers abroad, by helping firms -- especially small businesses -- overcome the hurdles to entering new export markets, by assisting with financing, and in general by pursuing a Government-wide approach to export advocacy abroad, among other steps.” [Executive Order – National Export Initiative, 3/11/10]Pushback: We’re Experiencing The Worst Jobs Recovery On RecordIN THE CURRENT RECOVERY, THE ECONOMY HAS ADDED MORE THAN 2.6 MILLION MORE PRIVATE SECTOR JOBS THAN OVER THE SAME PERIOD OF THE RECOVERY FROM THE 2001 RECESSION?Over The Last 39 Months Of The Current Recovery, From June 2009 Through September 2012, The U.S. Economy Has Added 4,019,000 Private Sector Jobs. In June 2009, the U.S. economy employed 107,933,000 people in the private sector. In September 2012, the U.S. economy employed 111,952,000 people in the private sector, gaining 4,019,000private sector jobs over the 39 month period, including the CES preliminary benchmark revision to March 2012 data. [Current Employment Statistics, Bureau Of Labor Statistics, accessed?10/5/12; CES Preliminary Benchmark Announcement, Bureau Of Labor Statistics, 9/27/12]Over The 39 Months Following 2001 Recession, From November 2001 Through February 2005, The U.S. Economy Added 1,377,000 Private Sector Jobs. In November 2001, the U.S. economy employed 109, 572,000 people in the private sector. In February 2005, the U.S. economy employed 110,949,000 people in the private sector gaining 1,377,000 private sector jobs over the 39 month period. [Bureau of Labor Statistics, accessed?10/5/12]ROMNEY’S CLAIM THAT WE’RE EXPERIENCING THE WORST JOBS RECOVERY ON RECORD IS FALSEPresident Obama Has Not Overseen The Weakest Jobs Recovery Since Hoover, Based On Job Creation And On Unemployment Rates Over TIme. “We compared the number of employed Americans at the start of the recovery to the number employed at the end of the 23-month period. Then we calculated the percentage increase (or decrease) in employment over that time period. By this measure, there were two recoveries weaker than the one we’re currently experiencing -- the one from November 2001 to October 2003, under President George W. Bush, and the one from July 1980 to June 1982, under presidents Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan. The George W. Bush recovery is especially striking, since the economy actually lost more than 700,000 jobs during the first 23 months after the recession ended.We compared the unemployment rate at the end of the 23-month period to what it was at the beginning of the period. By this measure, too, the current recovery is not the weakest.” [PolitiFact, 6/16/11]Mitt Romney Is Accusing President Obama Of Overseeing The Worst Jobs Recovery Since The Great Depression, But Romney’s Accusation Is Wrong. “Mitt Romney is accusing President Obama of overseeing the worst jobs recovery since the Great Depression. And months of disappointing?jobs?growth means the president could face Election Day?with fewer workers than on the day he took office. But Romney's accusation is wrong -- President Obama's job gap isn't the worst. In fact, it isn't nearly as big as the one President George Bush faced eight years ago.” [CNN,9/18/12]Pushback: QE3 Confirms That President Obama’s Policies Have Not WorkedINDEPENDENT FACT CHECKERS HAVE CALLED THE ROMNEY CAMPAIGN’S ATTEMPTS TO LINK PRESIDENT OBAMA TO QUANTITATIVE EASING “HOWLING FALSEHOODS” THAT AREN’T “EVEN CLOSE” TO BEING : The Romney Campaign’s Claims That President Obama Is Responsible For Or Spending Taxpayer Dollars On Quantitative Easing Are “Two Howling Falsehoods.” “The Romney campaign crams two howling falsehoods into a very few words: It accuses President Obama of being personally responsible for actions by the Federal Reserve Board, which is independent. It claims Obama is ‘spending your tax dollars’ in the Fed’s latest move to buy mortgage-backed securities, when in fact the Fed is turning a big profit for the Treasury, reducing the deficit.” [, 9/17/12]Neither “Whopper…Is True, Or Even Close.” “Romney campaign manager Matt Rhoades committed both these whoppers in an appeal for donations that was emailed Sept. 17 and repeated on the campaign’s website blog…Neither claim is true, or even close.” [, 9/17/12]“The Fed By Law Is Independent Of The President” And “Gets No Money” From Taxpayers. “The Fed by law is independent of the president and Congress, and operates under a board of governors whose members cannot be removed by the president for their policy views…And Rhoades gets it backward when he claims ‘your tax dollars’ are being spent. Actually, the Fed gets no money from Congress at all. In fact, it turns a profit for taxpayers.” [, 9/17/12]UNDER PRESIDENT OBAMA’S LEADERSHIP, THE ECONOMY HAS GONE FROM LOSING 800,000 JOBS A MONTH TO ADDING?5.2 MILLION?PRIVATE SECTOR JOBS OVER THE LAST 31 MONTHS?The Economy Lost Over 4.4 Million Jobs Between The Beginning Of The Recession And January 2009. In December 2007, the U.S. economy had 137,982,000 nonfarm jobs. In January 2009, the U. S. economy had 133,561,000 nonfarm jobs, a loss of 4,421,000 nonfarm jobs over this period. [Bureau of Labor Statistics, accessed 10/7/11]When President Obama Took Office The Economy Was Losing 800,000 Jobs A Month. According to Bureau of Labor Statistics data, the average of nonfarm job losses in January 2009, March 2009, and February 2009 totals 780,000. [Bureau of Labor Statistics, accessed 9/4/12]?The U.S. Economy Has Added 5.2 Million Private Sector Jobs In The Last 31 Months.?In February 2010, the U.S. economy employed 106,773,000 people in the private sector. In September 2012, the U.S. economy employed 111,952,000 people in the private sector, gaining 5,179,000 jobs over the 31 month period, including the CES preliminary benchmark revision to March 2012 data. [Current Employment Statistics, Bureau Of Labor Statistics, accessed?10/5/12; CES Preliminary Benchmark Announcement, Bureau Of Labor Statistics, 9/27/12]?Private Sector Job Growth Has Continued For 31 Consecutive Months. [Bureau of Labor Statistics, accessed?10/5/12]?Contrary To Romney’s Claims, President Obama Did Not Give GM And Chrysler To The UnionsPRESIDENT OBAMA DIDN’T GIVE AUTO COMPANIES TO UNIONS—HE DEMANDED SHARED SACRIFICE FROM ALL STAKEHOLDERSNew York Times Fact Check: The Auto Rescue Involved Both Labor And Management “Making Concessions As They Never Had Before.” “The auto rescue of General Motors and Chrysler was worked out between the unions and management, with both sides making concessions they never had before as a condition for their federal loans, conditions set by the Obama administration's team.” [New York Times, 2/22/12]PolitiFact Rated Romney’s Claim That President Obama Gave GM And Chrysler To The Unions “False.” [Politifact, 2/27/12]Associated Press Fact Check: “ROMNEY: President Barack Obama ‘Gave GM To UAW, He Gave Chrysler To Fiat.’ THE FACTS: That's Not What Happened In The Bailout.” “ROMNEY: President Barack Obama ‘gave GM to UAW, he gave Chrysler to Fiat.’ THE FACTS: That's not what happened in the bailout.A trust owned by the United Auto Workers received a 17.5 percent ownership stake in GM to help that trust pay for its retirees' health care…The trust now owns about 10 percent of General Motors. That's much smaller than the government's stake of about 30 percent, and it doesn't support the notion that the government ‘gave’ the company to the union. Moreover, the union did not get free rein in return for its share. It was barred from going on strike over wage issues during recent contract talks with GM and Chrysler, as a condition of the bailouts. Nor did Obama give Chrysler to Fiat.” [Associated Press, 11/10/11]Washington Post Fact Checker Glenn Kessler: Romney Is Wrong To Claim That President Obama Gave GM And Chrysler To The UAW. “’Romney is also wrong to claim that ‘the president gave the companies to the United Auto Workers.” [Washington Post, 2/23/12]The Auto Rescue Avoided A Financial Catastrophe That Would Have Far Exceeded The Cost Of The RescueTHE AUTO RESCUE SAVED A MILLION JOBS AND AVOIDED FINANCIAL CATASTROPHE FOR MILLIONS OF AMERICANS FAR IN EXCESS OF THE COST OF THE RESCUECenter For Automotive Research: The Auto Industry Rescue Saved Over 1.1 Million Jobs In 2009. “The May results estimated that the outcomes of the orderly bankruptcy proceedings would save 1.28 million jobs in 2009, while the current review estimates slightly lower job savings of 1.14 million jobs. For 2010, original estimates (of orderly bankruptcies vs. unsuccessful proceedings) were that 267,300 jobs would be saved, while the current review estimates that 314,400 jobs were preserved.” [Center for Automotive Research Report, 11/7/10]Doing Nothing For GM And Chrysler “Could Have Cost More Than Twice As Much” As The Auto Rescue – Which Prevented “Financial Catastrophe For Millions Of Americans Far In Excess” Of The Cost Of The Rescue. “Saying the U.S. taxpayer ‘lost money’ is probably the wrong perspective, considering that spending no money at all likely would have meant a financial catastrophe for millions of Americans far in excess of a mere $14 billion. Had GM and Chrysler collapsed, it would have cost the federal government about $28.6 billion in lost tax revenues and assistance to the unemployed in just the first two years alone, according to the Michigan-based Center for Automotive Research. In other words, doing nothing could have cost more than twice as much the bailout.” [CNNMoney, 7/22/11]The Managed Bankruptcy Romney Advocated For Is Not What Happened In The Auto RescueTHE MANAGED BANKRUPTCY ADVOCATED BY ROMNEY IS NOT WHAT HAPPENED IN THE AUTO RESCUEReuters:The Managed Bankruptcy Advocated By Romney “Is Not What Happened” In The Auto Rescue.? “Romney argued in the Times article that the automakers should not get government help but instead go through a private bankruptcy process to trim costs. That is not what happened. The U.S. government, first under Bush and then under Obama, committed $49.5 billion in working capital and loans to GM and $12.5 billion to Chrysler. Nearly $20 billion more in related financing went to suppliers, dealers and auto-financing firms.” [Reuters, 2/10/12]Associated Press: There Was A “Tremendous Difference” Between Romney’s Managed Bankruptcy And The Auto Rescue. “ROMNEY: ‘They finally realized I was right.’ - On the government ushering the auto industry into and out of bankruptcy. THE FACTS: Romney did propose a bankruptcy process for the automakers before the government opted for that course. But there was a tremendous difference between the course he advocated and the one that was taken.” [Associated Press, 2/22/12]New York Times: Romney Was Against The Government Providing Assistance To Automakers – “Which Is Exactly What The Obama Administration Proceeded To Do.” According to a fact check of Mitt Romney’s claim that “I’ll take a lot of credit for the fact that this industry’s come back,” “Mr. Romney’s position was that the government should not bail out the auto industry with financial assistance — which is exactly what the Obama administration proceeded to do.”?[New York Times, 6/19/12]?Pushback: President Obama Failed To Keep A Janesville GM Plant OpenINDEPENDENT FACT CHECKERS HAVE CALLED RYAN’S ATTACKS ON PRESIDENT OBAMA OVER THE JANESVILLE GM PLANT “WRONG,” “FALSE,” AND “MISLEADING” BECAUSE THE PLANT CLOSED BEFORE PRESIDENT OBAMA CAME INTO : Ryan’s Claim That President Obama Failed To Keep Janesville GM Open Is “False” And “Misleading.” “Paul Ryan’s acceptance speech at the Republican convention contained several false claims and misleading statements. Delegates cheered as the vice presidential nominee: … Faulted Obama for failing to deliver a 2008 campaign promise to keep a Wisconsin plant open. It closed less than a month before Obama took office.” [, 8/30/12]Politifact Wisconsin Rated Ryan’s Claim That That President Obama Failed To Keep Janesville GM Open As “False.” “Ryan said Obama broke his promise to keep a Wisconsin GM plant from closing. But we don't see evidence he explicitly made such a promise -- and more importantly, the Janesville plant shut down before he took office. We rate Ryan's statement False.” [Politifact Wisconsin, 8/29/12]CNNFact Check: “Ryan Was Wrong For Saying President Obama Promised To Keep [Janesville GM] Open.” “Ryan reportedly recalled this event incorrectly just days ago, during an August 16 speech in Ohio. Ryan reportedly alleged that Obama said he'd ‘keep that plant open,’ and therefore broke his promise because the plant closed… The Detroit News pointed out that Obama made no such promise in the February 13, 2008, speech, and indeed, we've seen no account suggesting that Obama did…So, back on August 16 of this year, it does appear Ryan was wrong for saying Obama promised to keep it open.” [CNN, 8/30/12]Detroit News: “Paul Ryan Inaccurately Said…President Barack Obama ‘Broke His Promise’ By Failing To Keep A General Motors Plant Open That Closed In 2008 - Before The Democrat Took Office.” “Republican vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan inaccurately said Thursday that President Barack Obama ‘broke his promise’ by failing to keep a General Motors plant open that closed in 2008 - before the Democrat took office. Ryan, the House Budget committee chairman, recounted the decision by GM to shutter the Janesville Assembly plant in his hometown in June 2008. The last SUV rolled off the line in December 2008.” [Detroit News, 8/16/12]Washington Post’s Glenn Kessler: “Paul Ryan Appeared To Suggest That President Obama Was Responsible For The Closing Of A GM Plant In Ryan’s Hometown Of Janesville, Wisc. That’s Not True.” “In his acceptance speech, GOP Vice presidential nominee Paul Ryan appeared to suggest that President Obama was responsible for the closing of a GM plant in Ryan’s hometown of Janesville, Wisc. That’s not true. The plant was closed in December, 2008, before Obama was sworn in.” [Glenn Kessler, Washington Post, 8/29/12]Fox News’ Sally Kohn: “Fact: … The GM Plant In Janesville … Was Actually Closed Under President George W. Bush,” Not President Obama.” “Fact: While Ryan blamed President Obama for the shut down of a GM plant in Janesville, Wisconsin, the plant was actually closed under President George W. Bush. Ryan actually asked for federal spending to save the plant, while Romney has criticized the auto industry bailout that President Obama ultimately enacted to prevent other plants from closing.” [Sally Kohn Opinion, Fox News, 8/30/12]CNN’s John King: The GM Plant In Janesville Ryan Mentioned “Was Shut Down Under The Bush Administration. That Happens To Be A Fact.” KING: “One thing Paul Ryan talked about was that GM plant that closed in Janesville. That plant was shut down under the Bush administration. That happens to be a fact.” [CNN, 8/29/12]GM Announced 2,000 New Jobs And InsourcingGENERAL MOTORS ANNOUNCED IT WAS CREATING 2,000 NEW JOBS IN MICHIGAN AND IS WORKING TO INSOURCE ITS INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY JOBSOctober 2012: GM Announced That It Was Creating 2,000 New Jobs In Michigan, With Up To 1,500 At Its New Information Technology Center In Warren. “General Motors Co. and the state announced Monday that GM will create 2,000 new jobs in Michigan, beginning with up to 1,500 at a new information technology innovation center in Warren. It's unclear where GM would add the other 500 jobs, but the state says the innovation center is the first of three projects the company will announce. GM will invest $300 million combined for the three. The state said GM plans no major investment spending on the information technology center; it will be housed in an existing building undergoing renovation on the Warren Tech Center campus. The center will hire 1,500 new employees within four years and will add to information technology employment already in Warren, Randy Mott, GM's vice president of information technology and chief information officer, said in a Friday interview.” [Detroit News, 10/8/12]GM Is Working To Insource Its Information Technology Jobs, With The Goal Of Insourcing 90% Of Its IT Work Over The Next Three To Five Years. “GM is in the midst of a major overhaul of its information technology organization that includes hiring fewer than 10,000 workers as it in-sources the majority of its information technology work. Bringing more information technology workers into GM will allow the company to work more on innovative software solutions, Mott has said. Today, about 10 percent of information technology operations are handled within GM by about 1,500 workers globally, including 900 to 1,000 in Detroit and Warren. The remaining 90 percent is handled by about 10,000 people outside the company, and Mott wants to flip those percentages over the next three to five years.” [Detroit News, 10/8/12]Romney Gets Facts Wrong In Accusing President Obama Of Being Beholden To Labor UnionsINDEPENDENT FACT CHECKERS HAVE CONFIRMED THAT ROMNEY “GETS HIS FACTS WRONG” WHEN HE CHARGES THAT OBAMA IS BEHOLDEN TO LABOR UNIONS; PRESIDENT OBAMA BELIEVES THAT LABOR AND MANAGEMENT SHOULD WORK TOGETHER TO DEVELOP SOLUTIONS TO WORKPLACE CHALLENGESPRESIDENT OBAMA BELIEVES THAT WORKERS HAVE THE RIGHT TO COLLECTIVELY BARGAIN FOR FAIR WAGESPresident Obama Said That When Republicans Try To Take Away The Right To Bargain For Fair Wages, That “Isn’t About Economics. This Is About Politics.” “Their plan says the best way to help workers is to roll back workers’ rights; to overturn laws that make sure construction workers get a fair wage; to blame teachers and firefighters and police officers and other public servants for our economic challenges? -- instead of what happened on Wall Street and a historic financial collapse So, Toledo, what you need to know is this: When they’re trying to take your collective bargaining rights away, when they’re trying to pass so-called ‘right to work’ laws that really mean right to work for less and less, you should know this isn’t about economics.? This is about politics. This notion that we should have let the auto industry die and that we should pursue anti-worker policies in the hopes that unions like yours will unravel -- it’s part of the same old you’re-on-your-own, top-down philosophy that says we should just leave everybody to fend for themselves.” [Remarks by President Obama at Toledo campaign event, 09/03/12]President Obama: “After All That Unions Have Done To Build And Protect The Middle Class, They Were Standing Up There At Their Convention Saying You’re Responsible For The Problems We Face.” “Now they’re saying it was their idea all along.? (Laughter.)? Seriously.? Or what they’re saying is, well, the problem is that you, the workers, made out like bandits in this whole thing; that we did what we did because it was all about paying back unions.? Really?? I mean, even by the standards of political campaigns, that’s a lot of you know what.? Workers made some of the biggest sacrifices.? About 700,000 retirees saw a reduction in the health benefits they had earned.? Hours were reduced, pay and wages scaled back.? You gave up promises made to you over the years for the sake and the survival of your fellow workers and their families and the company.? You made sacrifices.? (Applause.)? Which is why I don’t understand why these folks have the nerve to talk about you like you’re some greedy special interest that needs to be beaten down.? After all that unions have done to build and protect the middle class, they were standing up there at their convention saying you’re responsible for the problems we face.? Their plan says the best way to help workers is to roll back workers’ rights; to overturn laws that make sure construction workers get a fair wage; to blame teachers and firefighters and police officers and other public servants for our economic challenges? -- instead of what happened on Wall Street and a historic financial collapse.” [Remarks by President Obama at Toledo campaign event, 09/03/12]President Obama: “Our Economy Is Stronger When Workers Are Getting Paid Good Wages And Good Benefits.” “Well, that’s not what I believe.? I believe our economy is stronger when workers are getting paid good wages and good benefits.? I believe all of us are better off when we have broad-based prosperity that grows outward from a strong middle class.? And I believe when folks try and take collective bargaining rights away by passing so-called ‘right to work’ laws that might as well be called ‘the right to work for less and less,’ that’s not about economics – it’s about politics.” [President Obama remarks at the Building and Construction Trades Legislative Conference, 4/30/12]INDEPENDENT FACT-CHECKERS HAVE DISPUTED THE CLAIM THAT PRESIDENT OBAMA IS BEHOLDEN TO UNIONSAssociated Press: “FACT CHECK: Romney off on Obama's love for unions.” [Associated Press, 5/24/12]Tampa Bay Times PolitiFact Rated Mitt Romney’s Claim That “The President Gave The [Auto] Companies Away To The UAW” As “False.” [Tampa Bay Times PolitiFact, 02/22/12]: Romney “Gets His Facts Wrong” When Attacking The President For Taking ‘Marching Orders’ From Unions. “Romney also attacks the president for taking ‘marching orders’ from unions. But Romney gets his facts wrong with regard to one example: the case of Boeing in South Carolina.” [, 05/10/12]ROMNEY MISLEADS ON THE FACTS OF THE EMPLOYEE FREE CHOICE ACT: WORKERS CAN STILL CHOOSE A SECRET BALLOT ELECTION UNDER THE EMPLOYEE FREE CHOICE ACTFACT: Under The Employee Free Choice Act, Workers Would Still Get A Secret Ballot Election If A Majority Does Not Sign Cards. “Just like before, if unions got more than 30 percent of the employees to sign cards, they could ask for a secret-ballot election. But if they got more than 50 percent, the union would win automatically. The employer would no longer have the right to insist on a secret-ballot election and would have to negotiate with the union. … There would also continue to be secret-ballot elections in instances where a majority of employees say they want one. That is, where more than 50 percent of the employees sign cards requesting a vote on unionization rather than cards saying they want a union to represent them.” [PolitiFact, 04/24/09]New York Times: The Bill Would Give Workers The Choice Of Whether They Want To Unionize Through Secret Ballot Votes Or Card Checks, Where Workers Obtain Union Recognition As Soon As A Majority Of Employees At A Workplace Sign Union Cards. “The bill would let workers choose whether to unionize through secret ballot votes or card checks in which workers obtain union recognition as soon as a majority of employees at a workplace sign union cards.” [New York Times, 3/10/09] Under Current Law, Employees Already Must Sign Cards Saying They Support A Union In Order To Obtain An Election, And The NLRB – Not The Employer – Already Receives Those Cards To Determine Their Validity. “Here's how union elections work now: Union organizers try to get employees in a particular business or unit of a business to sign cards indicating they want the union to represent them in negotiations with the employer.?The employer is not permitted to see the cards before they are turned in to the National Labor Relations Board — or often even after that — or engage in any other kind of surveillance to try to discern which employees are union adherents and which are not.” [PolitiFact, 04/24/09]PRESIDENT OBAMA HONORS THE TRADITION OF LABOR AND MANAGEMENT WORKING TOGETHER TO SOLVE LABOR DISPUTESDecember 2009: President Obama Signed An Executive Order Establishing A Forum For Labor-Management Relations In The Federal Government To Develop Solutions Jointly. “By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, and in order to establish a cooperative and productive form of labor-management relations throughout the executive branch, it is hereby ordered as follows…Management should discuss workplace challenges and problems with labor and endeavor to develop solutions jointly, rather than advise union representatives of predetermined solutions to problems and then engage in bargaining over the impact and implementation of the predetermined solutions.” [Executive Order 13522, 12/9/09] President Obama: In The Private Sector, “If Labor Is Making Demands That Make Management Broke And They Can’t Compete, Then That Doesn’t Do Anybody Any Good.” Asked in a Twitter Town Hall about people losing their collective bargaining rights, President Obama said, “Now, we live in a very competitive society in the 21st century.? And that means in the private sector, labor has to take management into account.? If labor is making demands that make management broke and they can’t compete, then that doesn’t do anybody any good.” [Remarks by the President in a Twitter Town Hall, 7/6/11]President Obama, When Asked About The Boeing Negotiations With The Labor Board, Said That Shutting Down A Plant Due To Labor And Management Not Coming To A Sensible Agreement “Defies Common Sense.” “And what it doesn’t make -- what I think defies common sense would be a notion that we would be shutting down a plant or laying off workers because labor and management can’t come to a sensible agreement.” [Press Conference by the President, 6/29/11]PRESIDENT OBAMA DIDN’T GIVE AUTO COMPANIES TO UNIONS—HE DEMANDEDSHARED SACRIFICE FROM ALL STAKEHOLDERSPolitiFact Rated Romney’s Claim That President Obama Gave GM And Chrysler To The Unions “False.” [Politifact, 2/27/12]Associated Press Fact Check: “ROMNEY: President Barack Obama ‘Gave GM To UAW, He Gave Chrysler To Fiat.’ THE FACTS: That's Not What Happened In The Bailout.” “ROMNEY: President Barack Obama ‘gave GM to UAW, he gave Chrysler to Fiat.’ THE FACTS: That's not what happened in the bailout.A trust owned by the United Auto Workers received a 17.5 percent ownership stake in GM to help that trust pay for its retirees' health care…The trust now owns about 10 percent of General Motors. That's much smaller than the government's stake of about 30 percent, and it doesn't support the notion that the government ‘gave’ the company to the union. Moreover, the union did not get free rein in return for its share. It was barred from going on strike over wage issues during recent contract talks with GM and Chrysler, as a condition of the bailouts. Nor did Obama give Chrysler to Fiat.”? [Associated Press, 11/10/11]Washington Post Fact Checker Glenn Kessler: Romney Is Wrong To Claim That President Obama Gave GM And Chrysler To The UAW. “’Romney is also wrong to claim that ‘the president gave the companies to the United Auto Workers.” ?[Washington Post, 2/23/12]New York Times Fact Check: The Auto Rescue Involved Both Labor And Management “Making Concessions As They Never Had Before.” “The auto rescue of General Motors and Chrysler was worked out between the unions and management, with both sides making concessions they never had before as a condition for their federal loans, conditions set by the Obama administration's team.” [New York Times, 2/22/12]President Obama Has Taken Action To Implement 90% Of The Jobs Council’s RecommendationsTHE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION HAS TAKEN ACTION TO IMPLEMENT 90 PERCENT OF THE JOB’S COUNCIL’S RECOMMENDATIONS, INCLUDING SMALL BUSINESS SUPPORT, INFRASTRUCTURE PERMITTING AND REGULATORY REFORMSThe Obama Administration Has Taken Action To Implement 90 Percent Of The Jobs Council’s Recommendations For Executive Action, And Congress Has Passed Legislation Related To 20 Percent Of Its Recommendations Requiring Congressional Action. “The Administration has implemented or made significant progress towards implementing 54 of the 60 recommendations for executive action, a 90% implementation rate. Congress has passed legislation related to 6 of the 30 recommendations requiring Congressional action, a 20% implementation rate.” [The President’s Council On Jobs And Competitiveness, 2011-2012]President Obama Signed The JOBS Act, Which The Jobs Council Highlighted As An Implemented Recommendation. Included in a list of Jobs Council implementation highlights: “Nurture high-growth enterprises and improve access to capital Passed JOBS Act in March 2012 Increases the Regulation A ‘mini offering’ limit from $5 million to $50 million Allows startups and small businesses to raise up to $1 million annually from multiple small-dollar investors Creates an enhanced IPO process for Emerging Growth Companies.” [President’s Council On Jobs And Competitiveness, 2011-2012]President Obama Signed A Reauthorization Of Main Surface Transportation Programs, Which The Jobs Council Listed As An Implemented Recommendation. Included in a list of Jobs Council implementation highlights: “Reauthorize main surface transportation programs Extended federal highway and transit programs for 27 months, authorizing $120 billion in spending, funded by reauthorizing the existing gasoline and diesel taxes and transfers from the General Fund Expanded TIFIA loan program to leverage private dollars to build large infrastructure projects.” [President’s Council On Jobs And Competitiveness, 2011-2012The Obama Administration Acted On The Job’s Council’s Recommendation To Improve Federal Infrastructure Permitting. A Jobs Council list of implementation highlights includes the President’s executive action to expedite high priority infrastructure projects: “Selected 14 job-creating high priority infrastructure projects for expedited review, reviews for 6 projects have been completed. Launched an infrastructure permitting “Dashboard” to track project schedules online to drive transparency and accountability. Launched a comprehensive inter-agency effort to cut red tape and improve outcomes through concurrent instead of sequential reviews, early coordination among agencies to reduce duplication, and public timelines for infrastructure permits. Created interagency Steering Committee on permitting performance improvement, led by the Federal Chief Performance Officer Selected nationally and regionally significant projects to demonstrate best practices and results.” [The President’s Council On Jobs And Competitiveness, 2011-2012]The Obama Administration Acted On The Job’s Council’s Recommendation To Improve The Regulatory Process To Promote Predictability And Maximize Net Benefits. A Jobs Council list of implementation highlights reads, “Directed agencies to regularly conduct ‘look back’ reviews of existing regulations to reduce costs and eliminate redundancy and inconsistency; just a small fraction of the results are projected to save more than $10 billion over 5 years. Called on independent regulatory agencies to conduct regulatory lookbacks as well. Directed agencies to consider the cumulative effects of regulations and prioritize reforms that will promote economic growth and job creation. Directed agencies to work with international trading partners to harmonize regulations to promote exports and create jobs.” [The President’s Council On Jobs And Competitiveness, 2011-2012]Contrary To Romney’s Claims, The Unemployment Rate Is Declining Because More Americans Are Going Back To WorkFACT CHECKERS AND NEWS OUTLETS HAVE CRITICIZED ROMNEY’S CLAIM THAT THE UNEMPLOYMENT RATE IS REALLY 11 PERCENTRomney’s Claim That The Real Unemployment Rate Is 11 Percent Is “Too Facile To Constitute Sound Economic Analysis.” “Romney’s assertion is too facile to constitute sound economic analysis. He is certainly welcome to blame Obama for problems in the economy, but he can’t blame him for long-running demographic trends such as the retirement of the baby-boom generation. Romney needs to adjust his statistic to account for that fact.” [Washington Post Fact Checker, 10/6/12]Romney’s Claim Ignores Demographic Changes That Would Bring Down The Labor Force Participation Rate Regardless Of Economic Conditions, Including An Aging Population And A Higher Share Of Young People Attending College. “This exercise, though, assumes that the entire drop in the labor force participation rate from January 2009 to the present is a result of discouraged people giving up on looking for work. It ignores the fact that the baby boomers are hitting retirement age, meaning that demographics would probably bring down the labor force participation rate even if the economy were booming. Gary Burtless, an economist at the Brookings Institution, estimates that half of the decline in the labor force participation rate ‘can be traced to an aging population.’ The calculation above also ignores the fact that a higher share of young people are going to college, and are staying out of the work force temporarily while they improve their skills.” [New York Times, 10/5/12]THE UNEMPLOYMENT RATE IS FALLING BECAUSE MORE AMERICANS ARE FINDING WORKThe Unemployment Rate Decreased To 7.8 Percent In September 2012. “The unemployment rate decreased to 7.8 percent in September, and total nonfarm payroll employment rose by 114,000, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported? today.” [Employment Situation Summary For September 2012, Bureau Of Labor Statistics Press Release, 10/5/12]“Over The Last 12 Months, The Unemployment Rate Has Decreased By 1.2 Percentage Points, The Largest Drop Since February 1995.” [Employment Situation In September, White House Blog, 10/5/12]In September 2012, The Unemployment Rate Decreased As Employment Rose. “The unemployment rate decreased to 7.8 percent in September, and total nonfarm? payroll employment rose by 114,000, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported? today.” [Employment Situation Summary For September 2012, Bureau Of Labor Statistics Press Release, Table A-1, 10/5/12]The Civilian Labor Force Rose by 418,000 In September The Labor Force Participation Rate Increased By .1 Percentage Points. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the civilian labor force rose by 418,000 in September and the labor force participation rate increased by .1 percentage points. [Employment Situation Summary For September 2012, Bureau Of Labor Statistics Press Release, Table A-1, 10/5/12]In The Last Year, The Number Of Workers Who Left The Labor Force Because They Could Find Work Declined By 235,000. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the number of “discouraged workers” declined from 1,037,000 in September 2011 to 802,000 in September 2012. [Employment Situation Summary For September 2012, Bureau Of Labor Statistics Press Release, Table A-1, 10/5/12]Republicans’ Main Goal: ObstructionismSEN. MCCONNELL SAID DEFEATING PRESIDENT OBAMA WAS THE MOST IMPORTANT THING REPUBLICANS WANT TO ACHIEVE, AND REPUBLICANS HAVE TAKEN ?A “GO-SLOW APPROACH” ON LEGISLATION TO PREVENT THE PRESIDENT’S? RE-ELECTION Sen. Mitch McConnell Said “The Single Most Important Thing” For Republicans To Achieve In The Next Congress Was Ensuring President Obama Was A One-Term President. “Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell came under sharp attack from the White House and Democrats Tuesday for saying that his top priority in the next Congress is to ensure that President Barack Obama serves only one term. The Kentucky Republican made the statement during an interview with National Journal. But it's a variation on a line he has been using as he has stumped the country on behalf of Republican candidates in advance of the Nov. 2 midterm election. ‘The?single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president,’ he said in the interview.” [Louisville Courier-Journal, 10/26/10]Asked If He Still Believed Defeating President Obama In 2012 Is The “Most Important Thing” Republicans Want To Achieve, Sen. McConnell Said “Of Course.” “BAIER: In the final days before the vote, Democrats use this quote from you numerous times. You told the "National Journal," quote, "The?single?most?important thing?we want to?achieve?is for?President Obama?to be a?one-term president." Do you still believe that today? MCCONNELL: Of course. I mean, I'm the Republican leader of the Senate. I want to have a Republican?president?after 2012.” [Sen. Mitch McConnell Interview, Fox News, 11/3/2010]New York Times: Before President Obama Even Took Office, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell Devised A Strategy To Deny Democrats Any Republican Support On Major Legislation. “Before the health care fight, before the economic?stimulus package, before?President Obama?even took office, Senator?Mitch McConnell, the Republican minority leader, had a strategy for his party: use his extensive knowledge of Senate procedure to slow things down, take advantage of the difficulties Democrats would have in governing and deny Democrats any Republican support on big legislation. Republicans embraced it. Democrats denounced it as rank obstructionism. Either way, it has led the two parties, as much as any other factor, to where they are right now.” [NYT, 3/16/10]Wall Street Journal Headline: “Republicans See Advantages In Go-Slow Approach On Bills” [Wall Street Journal, 6/13/12]Republican Rep. Scott Garrett Argued That There Wasn’t An “Upside” But Rather It Would “Tie Romney’s Hands” If They Passed Needed Legislation Before The Election. “Rep. Peter King (R., N.Y.) agreed that Republican prospects are improving, but he said there should be no foot-dragging on needed legislation. ‘We've got to keep working,’ he said. ‘We can't coast.’ But some Republicans say they are wary of cutting deals that would curb the options of more-conservative leadership that could be in place next year. ‘Where is the upside?’ said Rep. Scott Garrett (R., N.J.), a senior member of the House Budget Committee. ‘You tie Romney's hands. If we get a good majority in the Senate and win the White House, we will be on a very strong platform to do the things we need to do.’” [Wall Street Journal, 6/13/12]CONTRASTToplinesUNDER PRESIDENT OBAMA’S LEADERSHIP, THE ECONOMY HAS GONE FROM LOSING 800,000 JOBS A MONTH TO ADDING?5.2 MILLION?PRIVATE SECTOR JOBS OVER THE LAST 31 MONTHSWhen President Obama Took Office The Economy Was Losing 800,000 Jobs A Month. According to Bureau of Labor Statistics data, the average of nonfarm job losses in January 2009, March 2009, and February 2009 totals 780,000. [Bureau of Labor Statistics, accessed 9/4/12]The U.S. Economy Has Added 5.2 Million Private Sector Jobs In The Last 31 Months.?In February 2010, the U.S. economy employed 106,773,000 people in the private sector. In September 2012, the U.S. economy employed 111,952,000 people in the private sector, gaining 5,179,000 jobs over the 31 month period, including the CES preliminary benchmark revision to March 2012 data. [Current Employment Statistics, Bureau Of Labor Statistics, accessed?10/5/12; CES Preliminary Benchmark Announcement, Bureau Of Labor Statistics, 9/27/12]?Private Sector Job Growth Has Continued For 31 Consecutive Months. [Bureau of Labor Statistics, accessed?10/5/12]?The Unemployment Rate Is Lower Than At Any Time Since January 2009. [Bureau of Labor Statistics, accessed?10/5/12]ONE STUDY SHOWED ROMNEY’S POLICY PROPOSALS WOULD COST NEARLY 2 MILLION JOBS OVER THE NEXT TWO YEARSEconomic Policy Institute: Romney’s Policy Proposals Would Cost 1.9 Million Jobs Over The Next Two Years, If His Tax Cuts Are Paid For. “If some of Romney’s proposed individual income tax cuts were revenue-neutral (he has said that they would be, but has not specified what ‘base-broadening’ adjustments he would make to the tax code to accomplish that), his plans would instead lead to employment losses of 608,000 in 2013 and roughly 1.3 million in 2014. The weaker job growth and outright job losses under the Romney plan are driven by his proposal to cap government spending at 20 percent of gross domestic product (GDP), a move that implies very large cuts to overall spending.” [Economic Policy Institute, Who Would Promote Job Growth Most In The Near Term? Macroeconomic Impacts Of The Obama And Romney Budget Proposals, 9/26/12]ECONOMISTS SAY ROMNEY’S ECONOMIC POLICY PLANS WOULD “DO MORE HARM IN THE SHORT TERM” AND “PUSH US DEEPER INTO RECESSION AND MAKE THE RECOVERY SLOWER”Washington Post Headline: “Economists: Romney’s Ideas Wouldn’t Fix Short-Term Crisis, And Could Make Things Worse.”? [Greg Sargent, Washington Post, 6/7/12]Senior Adviser At Moody’s Analytics Mark Hopkins: Romney’s Policies “Would Do More Harm In The Short Term” And “If We Implemented All Of His Policies, It Would Push Us Deeper Into Recession And Make The Recovery Slower.”Asking whether Romney’s economic policy ideas would create jobs in the short-term: “‘On net, all of these policies would do more harm in the short term,’ added Mark Hopkins, a senior adviser at Moody’s Analytics. ‘If we implemented all of his policies, it would push us deeper into recession and make the recovery slower.’” [Greg Sargent, Washington Post, 6/7/12]Nobel Prize-Winning Economist Joseph Stiglitz: “The Romney Plan Is Going To Slow Down The Economy, Worsen The Jobs Deficit And Significantly Increase The Likelihood Of A Recession.” “Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz said the election of Mitt Romney as president in November would ‘significantly’ raise the odds of a recession because it would herald a shift to a much tighter budget… ‘The Romney plan is going to slow down the economy, worsen the jobs deficit and significantly increase the likelihood of a recession,’ said Stiglitz, who served as chairman of President Bill Clinton's Council of Economic Advisers from 1995 to 1997.” [Bloomberg, 6/5/12]President Obama’s Plan Would Create Two Million More Jobs Next Year Than The Romney-Ryan Plan, And Romney’s 12 Million Jobs Claim Has Been DisputedTHE PRESIDENT'S PLAN WOULD CREATE TWO MILLION MORE JOBS NEXT YEAR THAN THE ROMNEY-RYAN PLANMoody’s Analytics Estimated That The American Jobs Act Would Add 1.9 Million Jobs, Add 2 Percentage Points To GDP, And Reduce Unemployment By A Percentage Point If Fully Implemented. “President Obama's jobs proposal would help stabilize confidence and keep the U.S. from sliding back into recession. The plan would add 2 percentage points to GDP growth next year, add 1.9 million jobs, and cut the unemployment rate by a percentage point.” [Moody’s Analytics, 9/9/11]Of The Measures In The American Jobs Act, Congress Passed Provisions Adding To About 775,000 Jobs Under Zandi’s Estimate.Congress passed a 2% payroll tax cut, estimated to create nearly 500,000 jobs based on Zandi’s estimate, and unemployment insurance, estimated to create 275,000 jobs. [Moody’s Analytics,?9/9/11]?The Economic Policy Institute Estimates That The Ryan Budget That Governor Romney Endorsed Could Cost 1.3 Million Jobs In 2013. "The Ryan budget calls for immediate reductions in primary budget deficits (i.e., revenue less non-interest spending). Relative to current policies, EPI estimated that primary spending cuts of $125 billion in fiscal 2013 would reduce GDP by 1.1 percent, and primary cuts of $279 billion in fiscal 2014 would reduce GDP by 2.4 percent. These cuts would again appreciably slow economic recovery. Net of a very small, albeit costly, boost to demand from tax cuts (which are about 75 percent less efficient per dollar in generating jobs and growth), these deep government spending cuts would reduce employment by 1.3 million jobs in fiscal 2013 and 2.8 million jobs in fiscal 2014, relative to current budget policies." [Economic Policy Institute,?8/13/12]ROMNEY’S ARGUMENT THAT HIS ECONOMIC POLICIES WOULD CREATE 12 MILLION JOBS IN HIS FIRST TERM WAS DISPUTED BY AN INDEPENDENT ECONOMIST, SINCE AMERICA IS ALREADY PROJECTED TO CREATE 12 MILLION JOBS OVER THE NEXT FOUR YEARSWashington Post’s Ezra Klein: “Romney’s Target Of 12 Million Jobs Over The Next Four Years Happens To Be The Same Number Of Jobs The Economic Forecasting Firm Moody’s Analytics Expects Us To Add Even Without Major Policy Changes.” [Ezra Klein, Washington Post, 8/31/12]Washington Post Fact Checker: Both Moody’s Analytics And Macroeconomic Advisors Predicted A Gain Of At Least 12 Million Jobs By 2016. “But Moody’s Analytics, in an august forecast, predicts 12 million jobs will be created by 2016, no matter who is president. And Macroeconomic Advisors in April also predicted a gain of 12.3 million jobs.” [Glenn Kessler, Washington Post, 8/31/12]Washington Post Fact Checker: Romney’s Pledge To Create 12 Million Jobs By 2016 “Appears To Be An Effort To Take Advantage” Of Broad Economic Trends Showing The Same Job Gains No Matter Who Is President. “But Moody’s Analytics, in an august forecast, predicts 12 million jobs will be created by 2016, no matter who is president. And Macroeconomic Advisors in April also predicted a gain of 12.3 million jobs. In other words, this is a fairly safe bet by Romney, even if he has a somewhat fuzzy plan for action. We have often noted that presidents are often at the mercy — or the beneficiary — of broad economic trends, and Romney’s pledge appears to be an effort to take advantage of that.” [Glenn Kessler, Washington Post, 8/31/12]Romney’s Promised Job Growth Is “Pretty Close To What’s Already? Expected” And “Not? Much To Write Home About.”? “But by at least some forecasts, Mr. Romney’s promises may actually be a little underambitious, in that his promised job growth is pretty close to what’s already expected. In its semi-annual long-term economic forecast released in April, Macroeconomic Advisers projected that the economy would add 11.8 million jobs from 2012 to 2016. That means Mr. Romney believes his newly announced policies would add an extra 200,000 jobs on top of what people already expected, or a jobs bonus of about 2 percent. The more jobs the better, of course, but that’s not really much to write home about.” [New York Times, Economix Blog, 8/7/12]Romney’s Plan Is To Create 12 Million Jobs – But The U.S. Is Already Projected To Do So Over The Next Four YearsROMNEY’S ARGUMENT THAT HIS ECONOMIC POLICIES WOULD CREATE 12 MILLION JOBS IN HIS FIRST TERM WAS DISPUTED BY AN INDEPENDENT ECONOMIST, SINCE AMERICA IS ALREADY PROJECTED TO CREATE 12 MILLION JOBS OVER THE NEXT FOUR YEARSWashington Post’s Ezra Klein: “Romney’s Target Of 12 Million Jobs Over The Next Four Years Happens To Be The Same Number Of Jobs The Economic Forecasting Firm Moody’s Analytics Expects Us To Add Even Without Major Policy Changes.” [Ezra Klein, Washington Post, 8/31/12]Washington Post Fact Checker: Both Moody’s Analytics And Macroeconomic Advisors Predicted A Gain Of At Least 12 Million Jobs By 2016. “But Moody’s Analytics, in an august forecast, predicts 12 million jobs will be created by 2016, no matter who is president. And Macroeconomic Advisors in April also predicted a gain of 12.3 million jobs.” [Glenn Kessler, Washington Post, 8/31/12]Washington Post Fact Checker: Romney’s Pledge To Create 12 Million Jobs By 2016 “Appears To Be An Effort To Take Advantage” Of Broad Economic Trends Showing The Same Job Gains No Matter Who Is President. “But Moody’s Analytics, in an august forecast, predicts 12 million jobs will be created by 2016, no matter who is president. And Macroeconomic Advisors in April also predicted a gain of 12.3 million jobs. In other words, this is a fairly safe bet by Romney, even if he has a somewhat fuzzy plan for action. We have often noted that presidents are often at the mercy — or the beneficiary — of broad economic trends, and Romney’s pledge appears to be an effort to take advantage of that.” [Glenn Kessler, Washington Post, 8/31/12]Romney’s Promised Job Growth Is “Pretty Close To What’s Already?Expected” And “Not? Much To Write Home About.”? “But by at least some forecasts, Mr. Romney’s promises may actually be a little underambitious, in that his promised job growth is pretty close to what’s already expected. In its semi-annual long-term economic forecast released in April, Macroeconomic Advisers projected that the economy would add 11.8 million jobs from 2012 to 2016. That means Mr. Romney believes his newly announced policies would add an extra 200,000 jobs on top of what people already expected, or a jobs bonus of about 2 percent. The more jobs the better, of course, but that’s not really much to write home about.” [New York Times, Economix Blog, 8/7/12]Under President Obama, Manufacturers Have Added Jobs, While Romney Called President Obama “Out Of Touch” For Encouraging The Manufacturing SectorUNDER PRESIDENT OBAMA’S LEADERSHIP, MANUFACTURERS HAVE ADDED JOBS FOR THE FIRST TIME SINCE THE 1990s, AND PRESIDENT OBAMA HAS A PLAN TO CREATE ONE MILLION NEW MANUFACTURING JOBS BY THE END OF 2016 BY BUILDING ON A RECENT TREND OF INSOURCINGNew York Times: “[Until 2010] There Had Not Been A Single Year When Manufacturing Employment Rose Since 1997.” “When the Labor Department reports December employment numbers on Friday, it is expected that manufacturing companies will have added jobs in two consecutive years. Until last year, there had not been a single year when manufacturing employment rose since 1997.” [New York Times, 1/5/12]The U.S. Manufacturing Sector Has Added 459,000 Jobs Since January 2010.?In January 2010, the U.S. manufacturing sector employed 11,458,000 people. In September 2012, the U.S. manufacturing sector employed 11,917,000 people, for a gain of 459,000 jobs including the CES preliminary benchmark revision to March 2012 data. [Current Employment Statistics, Bureau Of Labor Statistics, accessed?10/5/12; CES Preliminary Benchmark Announcement, Bureau Of Labor Statistics, 9/27/12]President Obama Set A Goal Of Creating One Million New Manufacturing Jobs Over The Next Four Years.?“President Barack Obama will set a goal of creating 1 million new manufacturing jobs over the next four years and doubling exports during the next two years, according to?excerpts of his speech?to the Democratic National Convention released Thursday.” [CNN,?9/6/12]ROMNEY CALLED PRESIDENT OBAMA “OUT OF TOUCH” FOR ENCOURAGING PEOPLE TO PURSUE MANUFACTURING JOBS Romney Said “The President Seems To Be Out Of Touch” For Encouraging Young People To Pursue Manufacturing Jobs. “At the stop in Detroit, Romney said Obama showed he was ‘out of touch’ this week when he encouraged young people to pursue manufacturing jobs. ‘Last month, 5,000 people lost their jobs in manufacturing,’ Romney said. ‘The president seems to be out of touch.’” [Detroit News, 6/9/11]Wall Street Journal: Romney “Appeared To Scoff… At The Notion Of Manufacturing As A Job Engine For The Future.” [Wall Street Journal, 6/24/11]Wall Street Journal: Romney “Twice This Month Said That The President Was Out Of Touch For Suggesting Young People Go Into Manufacturing” But “We Have Had Manufacturing Growth That Rivals The Levels Of The 1980s.”? Jonathan Weisman said in an interview on the manufacturing industry: “Actually, Obama sees and opening here because Mitt Romney, twice this month said that the president was ‘out of touch’ for suggesting young people go into manufacturing, go into community college to study, different kind of high-end manufacturing techniques and if fact if you look at the sort of sluggish recovery of jobs, manufacturing is one of the bright spots. Not particularly beaming but we have had good strong manufacturing growth. We have had manufacturing growth that rivals the levels of the 1980s.” [News Hub, Wall Street Journal, 6/24/11]President Obama Has Fought For Teachers And First Responders’ Jobs, While Romney Would Cut BackPRESIDENT OBAMA HAS FOUGHT TO KEEP TEACHERS AND FIRST RESPONDERS ON THE JOB The Obama Administration Was Able To Support Approximately 300,000 Education Jobs Through The Recovery Act. “In 2009, the President effectively deployed stabilization funds for state education budgets through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, which enabled states and schools districts to keep approximately 300,000 educators on the job in the face of budget cuts caused by the economic recession.” [Education Blueprint: An Economy Built to Last, White House, Accessed 04/15/12]The COPS Hiring Recovery Program Was Enabled Communities To Retain Or Add 4,699 Law Enforcement Jobs. “The Justice Department’s Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) added $1 billion in Recovery Act grants specifically to help police departments retain officers or hire new recruits to fill open positions. The COPS Hiring Recovery Program provides funds to cover full-time salaries and benefits for state, local, territorial and tribal police officers for three years. According to the Department of Justice: 7,300 applications received from all 50 states; 4,699 officer jobs expected to be retained or created.” [, 1/8/2010]President Obama Has Continued To Call For Measures That Would Create Jobs Now, Including Infrastructure Investments And Aid To States And Localities To Retain And Hire Teachers And First Responders. “That is why the President is still calling for efforts to spur near-term economic growth and job creation. This includes many of the planks in the AJA that were not enacted, as well as measures not included in that legislation. Some of these job-creating proposals include: An upfront investment of $50 billion from the surface transportation reauthorization bill for roads, rails, and runways to create thousands of quality jobs in the short term. Aid to States and localities to retain and hire teachers and first responders.” [FY2013 Budget, White House Office Of Management And Budget, February 2012]ROMNEY OPPOSES THE PRESIDENT’S PLAN AND WANTS TO CUT BACK ON TEACHERS, POLICE AND FIREFIGHTERS SAYING IT “IS NOT AN EFFECTIVE WAY TO GET THE ECONOMY GOING”Romney: President Obama “Says We Need More Firemen, More Policemen, More Teachers” But “It’s Time For Us To Cut Back On Government And Help The American People.”?ROMNEY: “[President Obama] wants to hire more government workers. He says we need more firemen, more policemen, more teachers. Did he not get the message in Wisconsin? The American people did. It’s time for us to cut back on government and help the American people." [Romney Campaign Rally, Council Bluffs, IA, 6/8/12]Romney Said “Guaranteeing The Government Will Keep Its Fire, Police And Teachers Intact … Is Not An Effective Way To Get The Economy Going.” From the Quad-City Times editorial board’s story on Romney’s meeting with them: “He condemns the Obama ‘idea of simply sending out checks to people or guaranteeing the government will keep its fire, police and teachers intact. That is not an effective way to get the economy going.’” [Editorial, Quad-City Times, 12/29/11]ATTACKTopline – Romney’s History Of Poor Job CreationRomney’s Focus at bain capital was creating wealth for investors, not jobs Under Romney, Bain Capital’s Focus Was Making Short Term Profits For Wealthy Investors And Well-Heeled Institutions No Matter The Effect On The Companies They Acquired. “Whether the acquired companies grew in size or shrank through layoffs, whether they remained independent or eventually merged into larger corporations, was secondary to making the investments pay for Bain’s own investors.? Wealthy individuals and well-heeled institutions typically entrusted Bain with millions of dollars in the hopes of doubling or tripling their money over a short period of time.” [Boston Globe, 10/24/02]Bloomberg: “A Review Of Bain’s Activities… Paint A Picture Of An Operation That Wasn’t Focused On Expanding Employment,” But “Was To Generate Gains For Its Investors.” “Interviews with former employees and executives at Bain and companies it controlled, along with a review of Bain’s activities described in public documents and news accounts, paint a picture of an operation that wasn’t focused on expanding employment. Instead, Bain’s mission, like most private equity firms, was to generate gains for its investors.” [Bloomberg, 7/20/11]Romney’s Bain Capital Partner Marc Wolpow: The Discussion At Buyout Companies Isn’t About Creating Jobs “It’s the Opposite – What Jobs We Can Cut.” “Marc Wolpow, a former Bain partner who worked with Romney on many deals, said the discussion at buyout companies typically does not focus on whether jobs will be created. ‘It’s the opposite—what jobs we can cut,’ Wolpow said. ‘Because you had to document how you were going to create value.’” [Kranish & Helman, Vanity Fair, February 2012]Staples Founder And Romney Surrogate Tom Stemberg “Said Making Money—Rather Than Creating Jobs—Was The Primary Goal Of The Presumed Republican Party Presidential Nominee When He Was Running Bain Capital.” “A top surrogate to Mitt Romney said making money—rather than creating jobs—was the primary goal of the presumed Republican Party presidential nominee when he was running Bain Capital LLC, saying he ‘acted responsibly’ as chief executive officer of the private-equity firm.? ‘The role of private equity as fiduciaries is certainly to make money,’ said Tom Stemberg, the founder of Staples Inc. (SPLS), in an interview on Bloomberg Television’s ‘Political Capital,’ airing this weekend.” [Bloomberg, 5/18/12]Romney Cannot substantiate his false job creation claimsBloomberg: Romney Has Used A Statistic Of Creating 100,000 Jobs Throughout His Campaign – “The Only Problem: It’s Not True.” “‘We were able to help create over 100,000 jobs,’ [Romney] said.?It’s a statistic Romney has used throughout his campaign. The only problem:?It’s not true. Back in April, Bain told Bloomberg News that they do not track the jobs?created or eliminated by their investments. That’s not surprising: the firm’s?mission is to create wealth for their investors — not jobs.” [Bloomberg News, 5/17/12]Bloomberg: “Neither Bain Nor The [Romney] Campaign Has Been Able To Document” Romney’s Claims Of Job Creation. “[Romney] also repeated a claim often made by his campaign that under his tenure the firm created 100,000 jobs. Neither Bain nor the campaign has been able to document that figure in response to repeated requests by Bloomberg News. Bain Capital doesn’t track jobs lost or gained as a result of their investments.” [Bloomberg, 5/17/12]ROMNEY’S JOBS RECORD IN MASSACHUSETTS WAS ONE OF THE WORST IN THE COUNTRY – HIS CLAIMS CLASH WITH REALITYLos Angeles Times Headline: “Romney's Spotty Jobs Record; He Says He Can Get The Nation Back To Work. That Wasn't The Case In Massachusetts.” [Los Angeles Times, 7/10/11]Washington Post Headline: “As Massachusetts Governor, Romney’s Record On Jobs Was Unremarkable” [Washington Post, 2/7/12]Associated Press Headline: “Romney's Economic Turnaround Claims Clash With Record In Massachusetts.” [Associated Press, 2/4/08]During Romney’s Tenure As Governor Massachusetts’ Economic Performance Was “One Of The Worst In The Country” And “On All Key Labor Market Measures, The State Not Only Lagged Behind The Country As A Whole, But Often Ranked At Or Near The Bottom Of The State Distribution.”Andrew Sum and Joseph McLaughlin wrote in the Boston Globe: “As Mitt Romney pursues his bid for the presidency, his record as Massachusetts governor will come under scrutiny, including how the state’s economy performed during his administration. Our analysis reveals a weak comparative economic performance of the state over the Romney years, one of the worst in the country. On all key labor market measures, the state not only lagged behind the country as a whole, but often ranked at or near the bottom of the state distribution.” [Sum and McLaughlin, Op-Ed, Boston Globe, 7/29/07]ROMNEY RANKED 47th OUT OF 50th IN JOB GROWTH AS MASSACHUSETTS GOVERNOR ?Wall Street Journal: “The Most Powerful Statistic May Be That Under Mr. Romney, Massachusetts Was 47th Out Of 50 States In Job Creation, Down From 36th When He Took Office.”?[Wall Street Journal, 5/31/12]USA Today Fact Check: Under Romney, Massachusetts Net Job Growth That Was “Far Slower” Than The National Average And Ranked 47th In Job Growth Over The Entirety Of Romney’s Term. “Unlike Obama, Romney took office during an economic uptick. Massachusetts had a net job growth of 1.4 percent under Romney. However, that was far slower growth than the national average of 5.3%. As Romney's opponents have frequently, and correctly, noted, Massachusetts ranked 47th in job growth over the entirety of Romney's term. The only states that did worse: Louisiana, Michigan and Ohio.” [Fact Check, USA Today, 1/5/12]WHEN ROMNEY ENTERED OFFICE, THE STATE UNEMPLOYMENT RATE WAS LOWER THAN THE NATIONAL AVERAGE. WHEN HE LEFT OFFICE, IT WAS HIGHER THAN THE NATIONAL AVERAGE ?When Romney Entered Office, The Massachusetts Unemployment Rate Was Lower Than The National Average. When He Left Office, The Massachusetts Unemployment Rate Was Higher Than The National Average. [. Accessed 5/22/12]?Under Romney, Massachusetts’ Unemployment Dropped From 5.6% In December 2002, To 4.7% In December 2006. [Bureau of Labor Statistics, , 9/16/11]?Nationally, Unemployment Dropped From 6.0% To 4.4% While Romney Was Governor Of Massachusetts. [. Accessed 5/22/12]?Massachusetts Leapt From 29th Highest To 17th In Unemployment Showing The State “Wasn’t Keeping Pace With Other Parts Of The Country.” “But the state’s jobless rate stayed the same during Romney’s final year as governor, and Massachusetts leapt from 29th highest to 17th in unemployment. Clearly the Bay State wasn’t keeping pace with other parts of the country.” [Washington Post, 11/4/11]ECONOMISTS SAY ROMNEY’S ECONOMIC POLICY PLANS WOULD “DO MORE HARM IN THE SHORT TERM” AND “PUSH US DEEPER INTO RECESSION AND MAKE THE RECOVERY SLOWER”Washington Post Headline: “Economists: Romney’s Ideas Wouldn’t Fix Short-Term Crisis, And Could Make Things Worse.”? [Greg Sargent, Washington Post, 6/7/12]Senior Adviser At Moody’s Analytics Mark Hopkins: Romney’s Policies “Would Do More Harm In The Short Term” And “If We Implemented All Of His Policies, It Would Push Us Deeper Into Recession And Make The Recovery Slower.” Asking whether Romney’s economic policy ideas would create jobs in the short-term: “‘On net, all of these policies would do more harm in the short term,’ added Mark Hopkins, a senior adviser at Moody’s Analytics. ‘If we implemented all of his policies, it would push us deeper into recession and make the recovery slower.’” [Greg Sargent, Washington Post, 6/7/12]Nobel Prize-Winning Economist Joseph Stiglitz: “The Romney Plan Is Going To Slow Down The Economy, Worsen The Jobs Deficit And Significantly Increase The Likelihood Of A Recession.” [Bloomberg, 6/5/12]ONE STUDY SHOWED ROMNEY’S POLICY PROPOSALS WOULD COST NEARLY 2 MILLION JOBS OVER THE NEXT TWO YEARSEconomic Policy Institute: Romney’s Policy Proposals Would Cost 1.9 Million Jobs Over The Next Two Years, If His Tax Cuts Are Paid For. “If some of Romney’s proposed individual income tax cuts were revenue-neutral (he has said that they would be, but has not specified what ‘base-broadening’ adjustments he would make to the tax code to accomplish that), his plans would instead lead to employment losses of 608,000 in 2013 and roughly 1.3 million in 2014. The weaker job growth and outright job losses under the Romney plan are driven by his proposal to cap government spending at 20 percent of gross domestic product (GDP), a move that implies very large cuts to overall spending.” [Economic Policy Institute, Who Would Promote Job Growth Most In The Near Term? Macroeconomic Impacts Of The Obama And Romney Budget Proposals, 9/26/12]Pushback: 5 Point PlanROMNEY PROMISES ENERGY INDEPENDENCE REALITY: ROMNEY’S PLAN IS BASED ON OIL DRILLING AND CUTTING OFF INVESTMENTS IN RENEWABLE ENERGY – BUT WE CAN’T DRILL OUR WANT TO ENERGY INDEPENDENCERomney Has The “View That The Government Should Cut Off Aid To Renewable Energy.” “Romney’s view that the government should cut off aid to renewable energy marks a reversal for the candidate.” [Washington Post, 6/8/12]TIME: “Romney Has Suggested That Wind And Solar Are ‘Imaginary’ Sources Of Energy, But They Can Now Power 15 Million Homes, And Their Industries Employ More Than 300,000 Americans. That’s Real.” “Before President Obama took office, the U.S. had 25 gigawatts of wind power, and the government’s ‘base case’ energy forecast expected 40 GW by 2030. Well, it’s not quite 2030 yet, but we’ve already got 50 GW of wind. We’ve also got about 5 GW of solar, which isn’t much, but is over six times more than we had before Obama. Mitt Romney has suggested that wind and solar are ‘imaginary’ sources of energy, but they can now power 15 million homes, and their industries employ more than 300,000 Americans. That’s real.” [Michael Grunwald, TIME, 8/10/12] The Hill Headline: “Romney Campaign: Let Wind Energy Credit Die This Year.” [The Hill, 7/30/12]Romney Would Keep $4 Billion A Year In Tax Incentives And Tax Breaks For Oil And Gas Drilling. Romney’s energy positions include: “Keep tax incentives and tax breaks for oil and gas drilling. These amount to about $4 billion a year.” [Washington Post, 9/11/12]Washington Post: “Romney’s Plan Spends A Lot Of Time Talking About Drilling” But “Energy Independence Will Require More Than Just Drilling — It Will Also Depend On Efficiency Standards That Romney Has Opposed.” “Energy independence will require more than just drilling — it will also depend on efficiency standards that Romney has opposed. Mitt Romney’s plan spends a lot of time talking about drilling. But it’s worth noting that both the EIA and Citigroup credit the Obama administration’s new fuel-economy standards for cars and light trucks as a major part of America’s lurch toward energy independence. By 2025, the increased CAFE standards are expected to reduce U.S. oil consumption by about 2.2 million barrels per day. Without those rules, energy independence looks nearly impossible. And Romney, for his part, has pledged to overturn those fuel-economy rules.” [Wonk Blog, Washington Post, 8/23/12]ROMNEY PROMISES TO GET TRADE TO WORK WITH A “CRACK DOWN ON CHINA WHEN THE CHEAT”REALITY: ROMNEY CRITICIZED PRESIDENT OBAMA FOR IMPOSING TARIFFS ON CHINESE TIRES CALLING IT “PROTECTIONISM” AND “BAD FOR THE NATION AND OUR WORKERS”Romney Attacked Obama’s Chinese Tire Tariffs As “Bad For The Nation And Our Workers” And Called It “Protectionism.”?“President Obama’s action to defend American tire companies from foreign competition may make good politics by repaying unions for their support of his campaign, but it is decidedly bad for the nation and our workers. Protectionism stifles productivity.” [Romney, No Apology: Case for American Greatness, Page 119 (audio available), released 3/2/10]The International Trade Commission Estimated That Tariffs On Chinese Tires Would Save The Equivalent Of Approximately 1,200 American Jobs. “Commissioner Lane notes that in the first year of relief, the average of the outcomes from the COMPAS Model shows that the domestic industry’s domestic sales are likely to increase by approximately 6.8 million units on average. Although the model does not specifically project the impact of such an? increase in output on employment, at the highest level of productivity reflected in the period of investigation 6.8 million tires would equate to over 2.3 million additional hours for production related workers in the industry. While these hours may be a combination of additional hours for existing employees and new jobs, they nevertheless equate to nearly 1,200 jobs on a full-time basis.” [International Trade Commission Report, July 2009] President Obama Has Brought Trade Cases Against China At Twice The Rate Of His Predecessor. The Obama Administration has filed 8? complaints against China with the World Trade Organization. Under the eight years of the Bush Administration, the U.S. filed 7 complaints against China with the WTO. [WTO List Of Disputes Cases, Accessed 9/15/12; Cleveland Plain Dealer, 9/16/12]ROMNEY PROMISES TO IMPROVE EDUCATIONTHE ROMNEY-RYAN BUDGET COULD CUT MORE THAN $115 BILLION FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION OVER THE NEXT DECADEIf Cuts Were Applied Across The Board, The Ryan Budget Would Slash Education, “The Department Of Education Would Be Cut By More Than $115 Billion Over A Decade.” “Yesterday, House Republicans released their budget resolution for FY 2013… On top of the roughly $1 trillion in cuts in the Budget Control Act, it would be difficult to overstate the radicalism of the domestic cuts proposed by the House budget resolution. In 2013, it would cut annual non-defense funding by 5 percent. By 2014, the resolution would cut this funding by 19 percent in purely nominal terms… The Department of Education would be cut by more than $115 billion over a decade.” [Jeff Zients, Acting Director of the Office of Management and Budget, , 3/21/12]If Cuts Were Applied Across The Board, The Ryan Budget Would Cut Elementary And Secondary Education Funding By $4.8 Billion. According to the White House, cuts to elementary and secondary education, special education funding would total $4,847,000,000 under the Ryan Budget. [White House, 4/6/12]ROMNEY’S PLAN: VOUCHERIZE AMERICA’S PUBLIC EDUCATION SYSTEMWHILE OFFERING NO PLAN TO FIX FAILING PUBLIC SCHOOLS??????????????????????????????????????????? Romney Proposed A “Voucher-Style System” For Education. “Shifting from the economy to education, Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney was proposing a voucher-style system that could significantly alter the public school system and revive the debate over school choice.” [Associated Press, 5/23/12]Romney’s Education Plan Says That Students Should Be Allowed To Escape Failing Public Schools By Using Federal Dollars To Pay For Private Schools, Online Schools And Other Alternative Settings. “Calling it a ‘national education emergency,’ Mitt Romney said Wednesday that poor and disabled children should be allowed to escape failing public schools by using federal dollars to pay for private schools, online schools and other alternative settings.” [Washington Post, 5/23/12]Former Education Secretary To George W. Bush Margaret Spellings Said She Stopped Advising Romney After He “Rejected Strong Federal Accountability Measures” Because Vouchers And Choice As Drivers Of Accountability Are “Untried And Untested.” “One notable skeptic is Margaret Spellings, a former education secretary under Mr. Bush, who this year was an informal adviser to Mr. Romney. She said she withdrew once the candidate rejected strong federal accountability measures.? ‘I have long supported and defended and believe in a muscular federal role on school accountability,’ Ms. Spellings said. ‘Vouchers and choice as the drivers of accountability — obviously that’s untried and untested.’” [New York Times, 6/11/12]REALITY: ROMNEY WOULD RETURN THE MIDDLE MAN TO STUDENT LOANS AND SLASH FUNDING FOR PELL GRANTSIf Cuts Were Applied Across The Board, The Ryan Budget Would Slash Education, Meaning “9.6 Million Students Would See Their Pell Grants Fall By More Than $1000 In 2014, And, Over The Next Decade, Over One Million Students Would Lose Support Altogether.” [Jeff Zients, Acting Director of the Office of Management and Budget, , 3/21/12]Romney’s Proposal To Repeal President Obama’s Overhaul To The Federal Student Loan Program Would Be “A Return To Bank-Based Student Lending.” “The presumed Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney pledged Wednesday that, if elected, he would reshape or do away with two major Obama administration higher education policy initiatives: the overhaul of the federal student loan program and tighter regulations on for-profit colleges…He also calls for a return to bank-based student lending, which was phased out beginning in 2010 as part of the health care overhaul.” [Inside Higher Ed, 5/24/12]Steve Benen: Romney’s Education Agenda “Vows To Bring The Middleman Back” To The Student-Loan System. “One of the overlooked accomplishments of President Obama's term is the reform of the student-loan system -- an effort that was decades in the making, but had been blocked by Republicans and bank lobbyists until 2010. Under the old system, the student-loan industry received billions in taxpayer subsidies to provide a service the government could perform for less. As Rachel explained on the show a month ago, in 2010, Democrats removed the middleman, streamlined the process, saved taxpayers a ton of money, and helped more young people get college degrees. Yesterday, Mitt Romney unveiled a new education agenda, which vows to bring the middleman back.” [Steve Benen, MSNBC, 5/24/12]ROMNEY CALLED PRESIDENT OBAMA “OUT OF TOUCH” FOR ENCOURAGING PEOPLE TO PURSUE MANUFACTURING JOBS Romney Said “The President Seems To Be Out Of Touch” For Encouraging Young People To Pursue Manufacturing Jobs. “At the stop in Detroit, Romney said Obama showed he was ‘out of touch’ this week when he encouraged young people to pursue manufacturing jobs. ‘Last month, 5,000 people lost their jobs in manufacturing,’ Romney said. ‘The president seems to be out of touch.’” [Detroit News, 6/9/11]Wall Street Journal: Romney “Twice This Month Said That The President Was Out Of Touch For Suggesting Young People Go Into Manufacturing” But “We Have Had Manufacturing Growth That Rivals The Levels Of The 1980s.”? Jonathan Weisman said in an interview on the manufacturing industry: “Actually, Obama sees and opening here because Mitt Romney, twice this month said that the president was ‘out of touch’ for suggesting young people go into manufacturing, go into community college to study, different kind of high-end manufacturing techniques and if fact if you look at the sort of sluggish recovery of jobs, manufacturing is one of the bright spots. Not particularly beaming but we have had good strong manufacturing growth. We have had manufacturing growth that rivals the levels of the 1980s.” [News Hub, Wall Street Journal, 6/24/11]ROMNEY PROMISES TO CUT FEDERAL SPENDING REALITY: ROMNEY PROPOSED $5 TRILLION IN NEW TAX CUTS AND $2 TRILLION IN ADDITIONAL DEFENSE SPENDING BUT THE ONLY SPECIFICS ROMNEY HAS LAID OUT “WOULD MAKE THE DEFICIT BIGGER, NOT SMALLER, AND ADD TO THE DEBT, NOT SUBTRACT FROM IT”?Los Angeles Times: “Romney Says He Wants To Balance The Budget Within Four Years, But He Has Not Spelled Out A Plan To Do So.” [Los Angeles Times, 8/27/12]Los Angeles Times: Romney Has Only Spoken In Specifics About Plans That “Would Make The Deficit Bigger, Not Smaller, And Add To The Debt, Not Subtract From It.” “Romney says he wants to balance the budget within four years, but he has not spelled out a plan to do so. Instead, most of the plans he has talked about specifically – significant new tax cuts, increased defense spending, no changes in Medicare or Social Security until people now 55 reach retirement age, postponing the automatic spending cuts scheduled to start Jan. 1 – would make the deficit bigger, not smaller,? and add to the debt, not subtract from it.” [Los Angeles Times, 8/27/12]Center On Budget And Policy Priorities: Romney’s New Tax Cuts Would Cost $4.9 Trillion Over A Decade, On Top Of The Cost Of Extending The Bush Tax Cuts.?“The Tax Policy Center estimates that the Romney tax plan would lose about $480 billion in tax revenue in calendar year 2015, beyond the revenues losses inherent in maintaining current policy (such as continuing all of the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts). Over the 2014-2022 period, that implies a total reduction in revenues of about $4.9 trillion, relative to current tax policy.” [Center on Budget and Policy Priorities,?5/21/12]Washington Post Headline: “Romney Confirms His Tax Cuts Won’t Be Paid For.” [Greg Sargent , Washington Post, 8/3/12]PolitiFact: “The President Said Romney Planned To Increase Defense Spending By $2 Trillion And That Was Money The Military Hadn’t Asked For… We Rate The Statement True.” “The president said Romney planned to increase defense spending by $2 trillion and that was money the military hadn’t asked for. Independent analysts confirm that number, and Romney did not deny it. Military leaders have testified in support of the president’s spending plan, and we found no evidence of disagreement behind the scenes. We rate the statement True.” [Politifact, 10/5/12]Wall Street Journal: “[Romney’s] Defense Spending Plans, Which Could Add Another $2 Trillion To The Budget Over The Next Decade, Further Complicate His Math.” [Wall Street Journal, 8/13/12]Think Progress:“Even His Own Top Foreign Policy Aides Can’t Explain How The Republican Nominee Would Pay For Such A Massive, And Completely Unnecessary, Increase In Military Spending.” [Think Progress, 10/4/12]ROMNEY PROMISES TO CUT TAXES FOR SMALL BUSINESSESREALITY: THE ROMNEY-RYAN TAX HIKE COULD RAISE TAXES FOR 30 MILLION SMALL BUSINESS OWNERSIf Romney’s Tax Plan Was Paid For, Taxpayers Making Less Than $200,000 Would See Average Tax Increases. [Tax Policy Center, On The Distributional Effects Of Base-Broadening Income Tax Reform, p. 16, 8/1/12]Politifact: “To Make Romney’s Plan Revenue Neutral,” Those Making Less Than $200,000 Would “See Outright Tax Increases.” “But to make Romney's plan revenue neutral, deductions would also have to be removed for people with incomes below $200,000, and the effects of that would be significant, the study found. In fact, the elimination of the deductions would mean outright tax increases for everyone with incomes below $200,000. People with taxable income between $50,000 and $75,000, for example, would see an average net tax increase of $641. They’d save $984 from Romney's rate cut, but lose $2,672 in write-offs.” [Politifact, 8/3/12]Tax Policy Center: Nearly 30 Million Americans With Business Income Earn Less Than $200,000. According to Tax Policy Center data on tax units with business income, there are: 2,762,000 that earn less than $10,000; 3,089,000 that earn between $10,000 and $20,000; 2,983,000 that earn between $20,000 and $30,000; 2,904,000 that earn between $30,000 and $40,000; 2,558,000 that earn between $40,000 and $50,000; 4,796,000 that earn between $50,000 and $75,000; 3,861,000 that earn between $75,000 and $100,000; and 6,568,000 that make between $100,000 and $200,000. In total, there are 29,522,000 tax units with business income that earn less than $200,000. [Tax Policy Center, T11-0148 - Baseline Distribution of Business Income, by Cash Income Level; Current Law, 2011, 6/7/11]REALITY: THE ROMNEY-RYAN BUDGET COULD CUT SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION FUNDING BY 19%?– A CUT OF $170 MILLIONThe Ryan Budget Would Cut Domestic Discretionary Spending By 19 Percent, And “Since The House Has Refused To Specify What Would Be Cut, We Consider The Impacts If The Cuts Are Distributed Equally Across The Budget.” “Yesterday, House Republicans released their budget resolution for FY 2013… On top of the roughly $1 trillion in cuts in the Budget Control Act, it would be difficult to overstate the radicalism of the domestic cuts proposed by the House budget resolution.? In 2013, it would cut annual non-defense funding by 5 percent.? By 2014, the resolution would cut this funding by 19 percent in purely nominal terms. Over a decade, the resolution would cut over $1 trillion in non-defense spending on top of the reductions the President has already signed into law.? The cuts in non-defense discretionary funding are nearly three times as deep as the cuts under the so-called sequester — cuts that we and most objective analysts have always regarded as an unwise and unacceptable. What would it all mean? The Budget doesn’t say.? In fact, the Budget resolution includes a magic asterisk — or, in more technical parlance, an ‘allowance’— for $897 billion in unspecified cuts. But what could the resolution mean?? Since the House has refused to specify what would be cut, we consider the impacts if the cuts are distributed equally across the Budget. The result would be that.” [Jeff Zients, Acting Director of the Office of Management and Budget, , 3/21/12]2012: The Enacted Small Business Administration Budget Was $900 Million. [Fiscal year 2013 Budget, Office of Management & Budget, p. 240]Pushback: 12 Million Jobs Claim Was Based On Studies That Fail To Prove His ClaimsROMNEY BASED THEIR 12 MILLION JOBS CLAIMON A MYRIAD OF STUDIES – SOME OF WHICH DIDN’T EVEN EVALUATE ROMNEY’S PLANS – THATFAIL TO PROVE HIS CLAIMSWashington Post Fact Checker Gave Romney’s Claim That He Will Create 12 Million Jobs In Four Years “Four Pinocchios.” [Washington Post – Fact Checker, Glenn Kessler, 10/16/12]Washington Post Fact Checker Called Romney’s Claim That He Will Create 12 Million Jobs In Four Years A “Bait-And-Switch,” Since The Numbers Behind The Claim Are “Based On Different Figures And Long-Range Timelines Stretching As Long As A Decade” And “In Two Cases Are Based On Studies That Did Not Even Evaluate Romney’s Economic Plan.” “Romney’s 12-million-jobs promise has garnered a lot of attention. We became interested in this ad after a reader asked whether the campaign had provided much detail on how he would reach this total. This television ad is also prominently featured on the Romney campaign’s ‘Jobs Plan’ Web page. The math here appears pretty simple: 7 plus 3 plus 2 equals 12. But this is campaign math, which means it is mostly made of gossamer... This is a case of bait-and-switch. Romney, in his convention speech, spoke of his plan to create ‘12 million new jobs,’ which the campaign’s white paper describes as a four-year goal. But the candidate’s personal accounting for this figure in this campaign ad is based on different figures and long-range timelines stretching as long as a decade — which in two cases are based on studies that did not even evaluate Romney’s economic plan. The numbers may still add up to 12 million, but they aren’t the same thing — not by a long shot.” [Washington Post – Fact Checker, Glenn Kessler, 10/16/12]Romney Used “Squishy” Numbers To Claim He’ll Create 12 Million Jobs, Including A Citigroup Global Markets Study That Predicted 3 Million Jobs Would Be Created “Largely Because Of Trends And Policies Already Adopted — Including Tougher Fuel Efficiency Standards That Romney Has Criticized And Suggested He Would Reverse.” “For instance, the claim that 7 million jobs would be created from Romney’s tax plan is a 10-year number, derived from a study written by John W. Diamond, a professor at Rice University. This study at least assesses the claimed effect of specific Romney policies. The rest of the numbers are even more squishy. For instance, the 3-million-jobs claim for Romney’s energy policies appears largely based on a Citigroup Global Markets study that did not even evaluate Romney’s policies. Instead, the report predicted 2.7 million to 3.6 million jobs would be created over the next eight years, largely because of trends and policies already adopted — including tougher fuel efficiency standards that Romney has criticized and suggested he would reverse.” [Washington Post – Fact Checker, Glenn Kessler, 10/16/12]Romney’s Claim That 2 Million Jobs Can Be Created By Cracking Down On China Is “Suspicious” Since The Study He Pointed To Was “Highly Conditional.”“The 2-million-jobs claim from cracking down on China is also very suspicious. This figure comes from a 2011 International Trade Commission report, which estimated that there could be a gain of 2.1 million jobs if China stopped infringing on U.S. intellectual property rights. The estimate is highly conditional and pegged to the job market in 2011, when there was high unemployment. ‘It is unclear when China might implement the improvement in IPR protection envisioned in the analysis, and equally unclear whether the United States will face as much excess labor supply then as it does today,’ the report says. The Romney campaign has already used this study, in a misleading way, to claim that Obama’s China ‘policies cost us 2 million jobs.’ Now the campaign has just taken the same figure and credited the claimed job gain to itself, even though the report does not examine any of Romney’s proposed policies.” [Washington Post – Fact Checker, Glenn Kessler, 10/16/12]Glenn Hubbard “Acknowledged” That: “The Big Point Is The 3+7+2 Does Not Make Up The 12 Million Jobs In The First Four Years (Different Source Of Growth And Different Time Period).” [Washington Post – Fact Checker, Glenn Kessler, 10/16/12]Washington Post’s Greg Sargent: Romney’s 12 Million Jobs Claim Is “Flim-Flam” Since “The Studies The Romney Camp Itself Cites In Defense Of The Plan Don’t Back Up The Plan’s Promises.”“Yesterday I noted that one of Obama’s most important tasks at tonight’s debate is to spell out clearly that Mitt Romney is selling the American people a bill of goods on jobs and the economy. Romney has promised that his “five point plan for the middle class” will create 12 million jobs. Of course, economists have estimated that the economy will create that many jobs in four years without any Romney policies. But Post fact checker Glenn Kessler decided to take Romney’s plan at face value. And he’s made an important discovery. It turns out Romney’s plan is an even more absurd exercise in flim-flam than we thought: The studies the Romney camp itself cites in defense of the plan don’t back up the plan’s promises.” [Washington Post, Greg Sargent, 10/16/12]Washington Post’s Greg Sargent: “The Plan That Is Central To Romney’s Candidacy On The Most Important Issue Of This Election — Jobs — Is A Complete Sham. This Is Every Bit As Bad — Or Worse — Than Romney’s Claim To Have Created 100,000 Jobs At Bain, Or His Vow To Cut Spending By Eliminating Whole Agencies Without Saying Which Ones, Or His Refusal To Say How He’ll Pay For His Tax Cuts.” [Washington Post, Greg Sargent, 10/16/12]Pushback: 12 Million Jobs From Status QuoROMNEY’S ARGUMENT?THAT HIS ECONOMIC POLICIES WOULD CREATE 12 MILLION JOBS IN HIS FIRST TERM WAS DISPUTED BY AN INDEPENDENT ECONOMIST, SINCE AMERICA IS ALREADY PROJECTED TO CREATE 12 MILLION JOBS OVER THE NEXT FOUR YEARSWashington Post’s Ezra Klein: “Romney’s Target Of 12 Million Jobs Over The Next Four Years Happens To Be The Same Number Of Jobs The Economic Forecasting Firm Moody’s Analytics Expects Us To Add Even Without Major Policy Changes.” [Ezra Klein, Washington Post, 8/31/12]Washington Post Fact Checker: Both Moody’s Analytics And Macroeconomic Advisors Predicted A Gain Of At Least 12 Million Jobs By 2016. “But Moody’s Analytics, in an august forecast, predicts 12 million jobs will be created by 2016, no matter who is president. And Macroeconomic Advisors in April also predicted a gain of 12.3 million jobs.” [Glenn Kessler, Washington Post, 8/31/12]Washington Post Fact Checker: Romney’s Pledge To Create 12 Million Jobs By 2016 “Appears To Be An Effort To Take Advantage” Of Broad Economic Trends Showing The Same Job Gains No Matter Who Is President. “But Moody’s Analytics, in an august forecast, predicts 12 million jobs will be created by 2016, no matter who is president. And Macroeconomic Advisors in April also predicted a gain of 12.3 million jobs. In other words, this is a fairly safe bet by Romney, even if he has a somewhat fuzzy plan for action. We have often noted that presidents are often at the mercy — or the beneficiary — of broad economic trends, and Romney’s pledge appears to be an effort to take advantage of that.” [Glenn Kessler, Washington Post, 8/31/12]Romney’s Promised Job Growth Is “Pretty Close To What’s Already? Expected” And “Not? Much To Write Home About.”? “But by at least some forecasts, Mr. Romney’s promises may actually be a little underambitious, in that his promised job growth is pretty close to what’s already expected. In its semi-annual long-term economic forecast released in April, Macroeconomic Advisers projected that the economy would add 11.8 million jobs from 2012 to 2016. That means Mr. Romney believes his newly announced policies would add an extra 200,000 jobs on top of what people already expected, or a jobs bonus of about 2 percent. The more jobs the better, of course, but that’s not really much to write home about.” [New York Times, Economix Blog, 8/7/12]Romney’s Economic Plans Wouldn’t Create Jobs, And Could Slow The RecoveryECONOMISTS SAY ROMNEY’S ECONOMIC POLICY PLANS WOULD “DO MORE HARM IN THE SHORT TERM” AND “PUSH US DEEPER INTO RECESSION AND MAKE THE RECOVERY SLOWER”Washington Post Headline: “Economists: Romney’s Ideas Wouldn’t Fix Short-Term Crisis, And Could Make Things Worse.”? [Greg Sargent, Washington Post, 6/7/12]Senior Adviser At Moody’s Analytics Mark Hopkins: Romney’s Policies “Would Do More Harm In The Short Term” And “If We Implemented All Of His Policies, It Would Push Us Deeper Into Recession And Make The Recovery Slower.” Asking whether Romney’s economic policy ideas would create jobs in the short-term: “‘On net, all of these policies would do more harm in the short term,’ added Mark Hopkins, a senior adviser at Moody’s Analytics. ‘If we implemented all of his policies, it would push us deeper into recession and make the recovery slower.’” [Greg Sargent, Washington Post, 6/7/12]Nobel Prize-Winning Economist Joseph Stiglitz: “The Romney Plan Is Going To Slow Down The Economy, Worsen The Jobs Deficit And Significantly Increase The Likelihood Of A Recession.” “Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz said the election of Mitt Romney as president in November would ‘significantly’ raise the odds of a recession because it would herald a shift to a much tighter budget… ‘The Romney plan is going to slow down the economy, worsen the jobs deficit and significantly increase the likelihood of a recession,’ said Stiglitz, who served as chairman of President Bill Clinton's Council of Economic Advisers from 1995 to 1997.” [Bloomberg, 6/5/12]ONE STUDY SHOWED ROMNEY’S POLICY PROPOSALS WOULD COST NEARLY 2 MILLION JOBS OVER THE NEXT TWO YEARSEconomic Policy Institute: Romney’s Policy Proposals Would Cost 1.9 Million Jobs Over The Next Two Years, If His Tax Cuts Are Paid For. “If some of Romney’s proposed individual income tax cuts were revenue-neutral (he has said that they would be, but has not specified what ‘base-broadening’ adjustments he would make to the tax code to accomplish that), his plans would instead lead to employment losses of 608,000 in 2013 and roughly 1.3 million in 2014. The weaker job growth and outright job losses under the Romney plan are driven by his proposal to cap government spending at 20 percent of gross domestic product (GDP), a move that implies very large cuts to overall spending.” [Economic Policy Institute, Who Would Promote Job Growth Most In The Near Term? Macroeconomic Impacts Of The Obama And Romney Budget Proposals, 9/26/12]Pushback: 7 Million Jobs ClaimROMNEY CLAIMED RICE UNIVERSITY PREDICTED HIS TAX PLAN WOULD CREATE 7 MILLION JOBSRomney: “Rice University Looked At My Tax Plan And Said Mitt Romney’s Tax Plan Will Create Millions Of Jobs.” [Romney Rally, North Las Vegas NV, 8/3/12]Romney: “My Tax Proposal, It Creates 7 Million Jobs.” [Romney in Toledo, OH, 9/26/12]Romney: “A Recent Study Concluded That My Plan To Reduce The Tax Rate On Small Business Will Instead Create 7 Million Jobs.” [Romney Address to US Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Los Angeles, CA, 9/17/12]RICE ECONOMIST JOHN DIAMOND, WHO ANALYZED ROMNEY’S PLAN, CONCLUDED HE “CAN’T ARGUE” WITH THE CLAIM THAT ROMNEY’S PLAN WOULD REQUIRE RAISING TAXES ON THE MIDDLE CLASS BY SLASHING POPULAR TAX DEDUCTIONSRice Economist John Diamond Said He “Can’t Argue” With The Conclusion That Romney’s Tax Plan Would Cut Taxes On The Wealthy And Raise Them On The Middle Class. “[Rice Economist, John] Diamond also said he ‘can't argue’ with the basic conclusions reached by an independent group of economists who found - to much derision from the Romney camp but to the delight of President Obama and his campaign ad-makers - that Romney's plan would necessarily cut taxes on the wealthy but raise them on lower-income Americans.” [National Journal, 8/8/12]Rice Economist John Diamond Said It Would Be “Difficult” For Romney’s Plan To Maintain Progressivity In The Tax Code. “Diamond didn't analyze how the plan would affect the distribution of the tax burden across income levels. In the interview, after cautioning that he had not run the numbers, Diamond considered whether it would be possible to maintain the existing progressivity of the code under Romney's plan. If you don't estimate the growth effects of reform, he said, ‘no, it's not possible,’ to maintain current progressivity. ‘And I think even with substantial economic growth, it will be difficult.’” [National Journal, 8/8/12]Rice Economist John Diamond Said The Only Way To Finance Romney’s Tax Cuts Is To Target Popular Tax Breaks Like The Child Tax Credit Or Deductions For Mortgage Interest, Health Care Benefits, And Charitable Deductions. “The rub is in all those details that Romney refuses to release about which tax breaks he would scrap. There's a reason he doesn't want to talk about them: The choices are ugly. You have only a few big targets to finance a big income-tax cut. They include credits and deductions that are extremely popular with swing voters, such as the child tax credit and deductions for mortgage interest, health care benefits, and charitable contributions. The only way a big tax-overhaul will pass, Diamond said, is if a president takes hold of a bunch of those popular credits and tries to sell voters on why they should give them up. ‘This type of reform will never happen if there's not presidential leadership and the president's not fully committed, and there's not some bipartisan agreements,’ he said, adding: ‘I just don't see any way that's going to happen right now. I don't see [Senate Majority Leader] Harry Reid or [House Speaker] John Boehner agreeing on anything - I don't care if it's now, or after the election, or six months from now, or 10 years from now.’ The odds of such a tax plan passing would increase, Diamond said, if a presidential candidate would lay out and own the tough details on the campaign trail. He doesn't expect that to happen. Nor would he advise it, politically.” [National Journal, 8/8/12]RICE ECONOMIST JOHN DIAMOND SAID THE ROMNEY CAMPAIGN REFUSED TO GIVE HIM ENOUGH DETAILS TO PROPERLY ANALYZE THE PLAN, SO HE FILLED IN THE BLANKS WITH GENERIC ASSUMPTIONS...Rice Economist John Diamond “Couldn't Model The Full Romney Plan, Because The Republican's Campaign Refuses To Identify, Even To Him, Which Tax Deductions And Credits They Would Cut To Make The Plan Revenue-Neutral” So He “Filled In The Blanks With Largely Generic Assumptions.” “On Friday, Romney ripped the Tax Policy Center study and touted Diamond's analysis of his proposal. ‘Rice University looked at my plan,’ Romney said, ‘and said, 'Mitt Romney's tax plan will create millions of jobs.”’ This is where things get tricky, economically and politically. [John] Diamond is not an adviser to the Romney campaign. He couldn't model the full Romney plan, because the Republican's campaign refuses to identify, even to him, which tax deductions and credits they would cut to make the plan revenue-neutral. ‘They didn't give me a whole lot of guidance,’ he said. So Diamond filled in the blanks with largely generic assumptions and noted in his analysis that the specifics could change his results.” [National Journal, 8/8/12]Rice Economist John Diamond On Analyzing Romney’s Tax Plan: “They Didn't Give Me A Whole Lot Of Guidance.” [National Journal, 8/8/12]…INCLUDING ASSUMING THAT ROMNEY WOULD LET THE BUSH TAX CUTS EXPIRE, WHICH DIRECTLY CONTRADICTS ROMNEY’S PLANRomney Claimed Rice Economist John Diamond Found His Tax Plan Would Create 7 Million Jobs, But Diamond “Assumed That Romney - Contrary To His Stated Campaign Position - Would Allow The Bush Tax Cuts To Expire And Then Impose His 20 Percent Across The Board Rate Reduction From There.” “On Friday, Romney ripped the Tax Policy Center study and touted Diamond's analysis of his proposal. ‘Rice University looked at my plan,’ Romney said, ‘and said, 'Mitt Romney's tax plan will create millions of jobs.”’ This is where things get tricky, economically and politically. [John] Diamond is not an adviser to the Romney campaign… He also assumed that Romney - contrary to his stated campaign position - would allow the Bush tax cuts to expire and then impose his 20 percent across the board rate reduction from there. Diamond's final conclusion was that Romney's reform would add 5.4 percentage points to projected gross domestic product growth over the next decade and would result in 6.8 million new jobs.” [National Journal, 8/8/12]DIAMOND SAID IT “ABSOLUTELY NOT” POSSIBLE TO PASS ROMNEY’S TAX PLANRice Economist John Diamond On Whether He Thinks Romney Could Pass The Tax Plan He Predicted Would Create 7 Million Jobs: “Absolutely Not” … “I Don't Think There's Any Chance.” “Nothing is as simple as campaign commercials or candidate sound bites make it sound, especially not tax reform, and certainly not tax reform with very few details revealed. Just ask the economist Mitt Romney is holding up as a shield against attacks on his tax plan. Specifically, ask John W. Diamond if he thinks it is possible, politically, to pass the sort of Romneyesque tax plan that Diamond predicts would create an additional 7 million jobs over the next decade. ‘Absolutely not,’ the Rice University economist replied, in an interview this week. Even under a Romney presidency, he added, ‘I don't think there's any chance.’” [National Journal, 8/8/12]Romney-Ryan Budget Would Slash Investments In The Middle ClassTHE ROMNEY-RYAN BUDGET WOULD SLASH DOMESTIC INVESTMENTS BY 20 PERCENT…The Ryan Budget Would Cut Domestic Discretionary Spending By Nearly 20 Percent. “Yesterday, House Republicans released their budget resolution for FY 2013… On top of the roughly $1 trillion in cuts in the Budget Control Act, it would be difficult to overstate the radicalism of the domestic cuts proposed by the House budget resolution. In 2013, it would cut annual non-defense funding by 5 percent. By 2014, the resolution would cut this funding by 19 percent in purely nominal terms. Over a decade, the resolution would cut over $1 trillion in non-defense spending on top of the reductions the President has already signed into law. The cuts in non-defense discretionary funding are nearly three times as deep as the cuts under the so-called sequester — cuts that we and most objective analysts have always regarded as an unwise and unacceptable. What would it all mean? The Budget doesn’t say. In fact, the Budget resolution includes a magic asterisk — or, in more technical parlance, an ‘allowance’— for $897 billion in unspecified cuts. But what could the resolution mean? Since the House has refused to specify what would be cut, we consider the impacts if the cuts are distributed equally across the Budget. The result would be that.” [Jeff Zients, Acting Director of the Office of Management and Budget, , 3/21/12]…WHICH COULD CUT MORE THAN $115 BILLION FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION OVER THE NEXT DECADE AND WOULD HIT STUDENTS WHO BENEFIT FROM PROGRAMS LIKE PELL GRANTS AND HEAD STARTIf Cuts Were Applied Across The Board, The Ryan Budget Would Slash Education, “The Department Of Education Would Be Cut By More Than $115 Billion Over A Decade.” “Yesterday, House Republicans released their budget resolution for FY 2013… On top of the roughly $1 trillion in cuts in the Budget Control Act, it would be difficult to overstate the radicalism of the domestic cuts proposed by the House budget resolution. In 2013, it would cut annual non-defense funding by 5 percent. By 2014, the resolution would cut this funding by 19 percent in purely nominal terms… The Department of Education would be cut by more than $115 billion over a decade.” [Jeff Zients, Acting Director of the Office of Management and Budget, , 3/21/12]If Cuts Were Applied Across The Board, The Ryan Budget Would Cut Elementary And Secondary Education Funding By $4.8 Billion. According to the White House, cuts to elementary and secondary education, special education funding would total $4,847,000,000 under the Ryan Budget. [White House, 4/6/12]If Cuts Were Applied Across The Board, The Ryan Budget Would Slash Education, Meaning “9.6 Million Students Would See Their Pell Grants Fall By More Than $1,000 In 2014, And, Over The Next Decade, Over One Million Students Would Lose Support Altogether.” “Yesterday, House Republicans released their budget resolution for FY 2013… On top of the roughly $1 trillion in cuts in the Budget Control Act, it would be difficult to overstate the radicalism of the domestic cuts proposed by the House budget resolution. In 2013, it would cut annual non-defense funding by 5 percent. By 2014, the resolution would cut this funding by 19 percent in purely nominal terms… 9.6 million students would see their Pell Grants fall by more than $1000 in 2014, and, over the next decade, over one million students would lose support altogether.” [Jeff Zients, Acting Director of the Office of Management and Budget, , 3/21/12]If Cuts Were Applied Across The Board, The Ryan Budget Would Mean “Roughly Two Million Slots In Head Start Would Be Eliminated Over The Next Decade — Cutting 200,000 Children From The Program In 2014 Alone.” “Yesterday, House Republicans released their budget resolution for FY 2013… On top of the roughly $1 trillion in cuts in the Budget Control Act, it would be difficult to overstate the radicalism of the domestic cuts proposed by the House budget resolution. In 2013, it would cut annual non-defense funding by 5 percent. By 2014, the resolution would cut this funding by 19 percent in purely nominal terms… Roughly two million slots in Head Start would be eliminated over the next decade — cutting 200,000 children from the program in 2014 alone.” [Jeff Zients, Acting Director of the Office of Management and Budget, , 3/21/12]…AND CUT INVESTMENTS IN RESEARCH AND CLEAN ENERGYIf Cuts Were Applied Across The Board, The Ryan Budget Would Mean “Investments In Science, Medical Research, Space, And Technology Would Be Cut By More Than $100 Billion Over The Next Decade.” “Yesterday, House Republicans released their budget resolution for FY 2013… On top of the roughly $1 trillion in cuts in the Budget Control Act, it would be difficult to overstate the radicalism of the domestic cuts proposed by the House budget resolution. In 2013, it would cut annual non-defense funding by 5 percent. By 2014, the resolution would cut this funding by 19 percent in purely nominal terms… Investments in science, medical research, space, and technology would be cut by more than $100 billion over the next decade. The number of new grants from NIH for promising research projects would shrink by more than 1,600 in 2014 and by over 16,000 over a decade, potentially curtailing or slowing research to fight Alzheimer’s disease, cancer, and AIDS. The National Science Foundation would cut over 11,000 grants over the next decade, eliminating support for over 13,000 researchers, students, and teachers in 2014 alone.” [Jeff Zients, Acting Director of the Office of Management and Budget, , 3/21/12]“The Number Of New Grants From NIH For Promising Research Projects Would Shrink By More Than 1,600 In 2014 And By Over 16,000 Over A Decade, Potentially Curtailing Or Slowing Research To Fight Alzheimer’s Disease, Cancer, And AIDS.” [Jeff Zients, Acting Director of the Office of Management and Budget, , 3/21/12]“The National Science Foundation Would Cut Over 11,000 Grants Over The Next Decade, Eliminating Support For Over 13,000 Researchers, Students, And Teachers In 2014 Alone.” [Jeff Zients, Acting Director of the Office of Management and Budget, , 3/21/12]If Cuts Were Applied Across The Board, The Ryan Budget Would Slash Clean Energy Programs By 19 Percent Over The Next Decade. “Yesterday, House Republicans released their budget resolution for FY 2013… On top of the roughly $1 trillion in cuts in the Budget Control Act, it would be difficult to overstate the radicalism of the domestic cuts proposed by the House budget resolution. In 2013, it would cut annual non-defense funding by 5 percent. By 2014, the resolution would cut this funding by 19 percent in purely nominal terms… Clean energy programs would be cut by 19 percent over the next decade, derailing efforts to put a million electric vehicles on the road by 2015, retrofit residential homes to save energy and consumers money, and make the commercial building sector 20 percent more efficient by 2022.” [Jeff Zients, Acting Director of the Office of Management and Budget, , 3/21/12]CATHOLIC BISHOPS CRITICIZED THE RYAN BUDGET CUTS FOR FAILING THE POORU.S. Conference Of Catholic Bishops: Deficit Reduction “Must Protect And Not Undermine The Needs Of Poor And Vulnerable People” And Therefore The Ryan Budget Cuts “Fail This Basic Moral Test.” “Congress should assess every budget decision by how it reflects the shared responsibility of the government and other institutions to protect human life and dignity, especially of the poor and vulnerable, said the bishop who chairs the Committee on Domestic Justice and Human Development of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) in a May 8 letter to the House of Representatives. ‘The Catholic bishops of the United States recognize the serious deficits our country faces, and we acknowledge that Congress must make difficult decisions about how to allocate burdens and sacrifices and balance resources and needs,’ wrote Bishop Stephen E. Blaire of Stockton, California, as the House prepared to vote on a reconciliation package for the 2013 budget. ‘However, deficit reduction and fiscal responsibility efforts must protect and not undermine the needs of poor and vulnerable people. The proposed cuts to programs in the budget reconciliation fail this basic moral test.’” [U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, 5/8/12]The United States Conference Of Catholic Bishops: Ryan’s Budget “Fails To Meet…Moral Criteria.” “Prior to the House considering the budget resolution, the bishops offered several moral criteria to guide these difficult budget decisions: 1. Every budget decision should be assessed by whether it protects or threatens human life and dignity. 2. A central moral measure of any budget proposal is how it affects “the least of these” (Matthew 25). The needs of those who are hungry and homeless, without work or in poverty should come first. 3. Government and other institutions have a shared responsibility to promote the common good of all, especially ordinary workers and families who struggle to live in dignity in difficult economic times. … The House-passed budget resolution fails to meet these moral criteria.” [United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, letter to Reps. Frank Lucas And Collin Peterson, 4/16/12]…AS DID HOSPITAL AND HEALTH ASSOCIATIONSAmerican Hospital Association Said Ryan’s Budget Would “Severely Impact Access To Care For Our Most Vulnerable Patients.” “However, today's budget proposal by the House will severely impact access to care for our most vulnerable patients.? While we recognize the serious fiscal challenges we face as a nation, this budget is not the right prescription for the health of America.” [American Hospital Association press release, 4/5/11]Catholic Health Association President Said Ryan Budget Was “Road Map To Ruin.” “While it is important to control federal spending and the deficit, cuts proposed by the House budget resolution would damage the nation's health care system by decimating Medicaid, Medicare and recent coverage gains made possible by the Affordable Care Act. Rather than a ‘path to prosperity’, the budget resolution is a road map to ruin for these vital safety net programs and the future health of our nation.” [Catholic Health Association press release,4/5/11]Romney Touting The Ryan BudgetROMNEY SAID HE WOULD SIGN THE RYAN PLAN AND HAILED IT SAYING “I APPLAUD IT. IT'S AN EXCELLENT PIECE OF WORK” – IT’S “MARVELOUS”Romney: “I'm Very Supportive Of The Ryan Budget Plan… I Applaud It. It's An Excellent Piece Of Work And Very Much Needed.” [Politico, 3/20/12]Politico Headline: “Romney Endorses Ryan Budget.” [Politico, 3/20/12]Associated Press’s Kasie Hunt Tweet: “Romney, 3/28:‘I Think It’d Be Marvelous If The Senate Were To Pick Up Paul Ryan’s Budget And To Adopt It And Pass It Along To The President’” [@kasie, Twitter, 4/3/12]Romney Advisor Ed Gillespie: “Romney Has Made Clear… If The Ryan Budget Had Come To His Desk As President, He Would Have Signed It, Of Course.” CROWLEY: “You can't have a guy on your ticket without embracing the fullness of his plan?” GILLESPIE: “Well, look, as Governor Romney has made clear, if the Romney -- I'm sorry, if the Ryan budget had come to his desk as president, he would have signed it, of course. And one of the reasons that he chose Paul Ryan was for Congressman Ryan's willingness to put forward innovative solutions in a budget.” [State of the Union, CNN, 8/12/12]Romney Advisor Kevin Madden On Romney Signing The Ryan Budget: “Yeah, Governor Romney During The Primary Was Actually Asked That Question, And He Said That He Would.” [Today Show, NBC, 8/13/12]Romney And Ryan Opposed The American Jobs ActROMNEY AND RYAN OPPOSE THE PRESIDENT’S JOBS PLAN AND ROMNEY WANTS TO CUT BACK ON TEACHERS, POLICE AND FIREFIGHTERS SAYING IT “IS NOT AN EFFECTIVE WAY TO GET THE ECONOMY GOING”Romney: President Obama “Says We Need More Firemen, More Policemen, More Teachers” But “It’s Time For Us To Cut Back On Government And Help The American People.”?ROMNEY: “[President Obama] wants to hire more government workers. He says we need more firemen, more policemen, more teachers. Did he not get the message in Wisconsin? The American people did. It’s time for us to cut back on government and help the American people." [Romney Campaign Rally, Council Bluffs, IA, 6/8/12]Romney: President Obama “Wants To Hire More School Teachers” But “Hiring School Teachers Is Not Going To Raise The Growth Of The U.S. Economy Over The Next Four Years.” ROMNEY: “He wants to hire more school teachers. We all like school teachers. It’s a wonderful thing. Typically, school teachers are hired by states and localities, not by the federal government. But hiring school teachers is not going to raise the growth of the U.S. economy over the next four years.” [Des Moines Register Editorial Board Interview, 10/9/12]Ryan Criticized American Jobs Act. “The stakes are therefore high for the?American Jobs Act?and the subsequent debt ‘super-committee’ negotiations. Already, high-profile Republicans such as?Paul Ryan,?a congressman from Wisconsin, have criticised the proposals as being part of Obama's election campaign and not a workable bill.” [Fund Strategy, 9/26/11]Romney Opposed The Auto RescueROMNEY WANTED TO “LET DETROIT GO BANKRUPT”ROMNEY OP-ED HEADLINE: “Let Detroit Go Bankrupt” [Romney Op-Ed, New York Times, 11/19/08]Romney Said Of The Auto Bailout: “That’s Exactly What I Said. The Headline You Read Which Said ‘Let Detroit Go Bankrupt’ Points Out That Those Companies Needed To Go Through Bankruptcy.” [Early Show, CBS News, 6/3/11]ROMNEY’S ATTEMPT TO CLAIM CREDIT FOR THE AUTO RESCUE WAS DEEMED “LAUGHABLE” - “OBVIOUSLY A LIE, AND A PRETTY BIG ONE”Pittsburgh Post-Gazette Editorial: Romney Claiming Credit For The Auto Industry Rebound Was “Laughable.” “When the history of the 2012 presidential race is written, the absurdity of presumptive GOP nominee Mitt Romney claiming credit for the rebound of the auto industry will warrant an entry, most likely under the heading ‘Laughable.’” [Editorial, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, 5/12/12]Detroit Free Press’ Stephen Henderson: Romney’s Claim That He Deserved Credit For Auto Industry’s Comeback Was “Obviously A Lie, And A Pretty Big One.” “Instead, we’ve heard Romney flim and flam about what he said about the auto industry in 2008. And now, incredulously, he wants to claim credit for the resurgence of General Motors and Chrysler, saying it was his idea to push them through bankruptcy. That’s obviously a lie, and a pretty big one.” [Stephen Henderson, Detroit Free Press, 5/8/12]Detroit Free Press Editorial Headline:“How Mitt Romney Saved Detroit, If Only In His Dreams” [Editorial, Detroit Free Press, 5/9/12]?Toledo Blade Editorial: Romney “Can't Have It Both Ways – ‘Drop Dead, Detroit’ In 2008 And ‘I Saved You’ In 2012.” [Editorial, Toledo Blade, 5/12/12]Toledo Blade Editorial: Romney Taking Credit For The Auto Industry Rebound Is Absurd. “When the history of the 2012 presidential campaign is written, the absurdity of presumptive GOP nominee Mitt Romney taking credit for the rebound of the U.S. auto industry will warrant an entry all its own.” [Editorial, Toledo Blade, 5/12/12]THE PRIVATE BANKRUPTCY ROMNEY ADVOCATED FOR WAS IMPOSSIBLE DURING THE FINANCIAL CRISISAutoNation CEO Mike Jackson: It Is “Pure Fantasy” To Suggest That Private Financing Was Available For Chrysler And GM.? LL: “What do you think of Mitt’s assertion that private financing ‘DIP’ was available in fall of ’08 into ’09?” MJ: “That is pure fantasy and you have to ask, what he was doing in ’08 and ’09 that he did not see this.” [CNBC, 2/16/12]AutoNation Inc. CEO And Romney Supporter, Mike Jackson Called Romney’s Detroit News Op-Ed Defending His Opposition To The Auto Industry Rescue, “Truly Reckless, Detached From Reality, And Dishonest.” Bloomberg wrote of Romney’s 2/14/12 op-ed about the auto industry rescue: “The piece drew criticism from Mike Jackson, chief executive officer of AutoNation Inc. (AN), the largest auto-dealer group in the U.S., who called it ‘truly reckless, detached from reality, and dishonest,’ as well as ‘very bad politics, especially in Michigan.’ Jackson, who has been a Romney advocate, said in an e-mail to Bloomberg News the assertion that private financing should have been used to fund GM and Chrysler bankruptcies was ‘fantasy,’ adding, ‘Everyone knows we were in the midst of the greatest financial meltdown since the 1930s.’” [Bloomberg, 2/16/12]Former GM Vice Chairman Bob Lutz Saw Romney Opposition To Federal Government’s Auto Industry Rescue As “A Political Ploy To The Right” And That Romney Was “Playing The Same Song As Rush Limbaugh And Glenn Beck.” “Some Republicans have criticized Mr. Romney’s insistence that federal intervention was wrongheaded as an example of what they see as his willingness to say anything to win over skeptical conservatives. ‘He’s playing the same song as Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck,’ said Bob Lutz, a former vice chairman for General Motors who said he was still so upset with Mr. Romney that he had cast his absentee ballot in Michigan for Rick Santorum. ‘I think all of us in the auto industry who knew what the situation was were profoundly disappointed and, I would say, angry,’ Mr. Lutz said. ‘We all saw it for what it was, which was a political ploy to the right.’” [New York Times, 2/19/12]Detroit Free Press Fact Check: While Romney Argued Against Using Taxpayer Money In The Auto Rescue, “Private Financing Was All But Nonexistent In The Frozen Credit Markets Of Late 2008 And Early 2009.” “Romney consistently has argued against taxpayer money being used to prop up the firms outside of bankruptcy. He seems to suggest that there could have been some funding after the fact to keep them up and operating until private financing kicked in. But people who were part of the rescue argue that this wouldn't have worked. Private financing was all but nonexistent in the frozen credit markets of late 2008 and early 2009. And both the Republican administration of President George W. Bush and the Democratic administration of President Barack Obama found it necessary -- if distasteful -- to put up billions of dollars to keep the companies open while they sorted out what should be done longer term (i.e., the ‘managed’ bankruptcy Romney suggested), though that took time. To withhold money then, supporters of the rescue have said, would have forced the companies into liquidation. Romney said Thursday he wouldn't have allowed that to happen.” [Fact Check, Detroit Free Press, 2/17/12]Massachusetts: Romney Increased Spending And Left A DeficitA BALANCED BUDGET IS REQUIRED BY MASSACHUSETTS LAWMassachusetts Law Requires The Governor To Balance The Budget.??“The governor shall recommend, the general court shall enact, and the governor shall approve a general appropriation bill which shall constitute a balanced budget for the commonwealth. No supplementary appropriation bill shall be approved by the governor which would cause the state budget for any fiscal year not to be balanced.” [Chapter 29, Section 6E Massachusetts General Laws, Accessed?1/14/12]Washington Post Fact Checker: “Comparing Romney And Obama On The Issue Of Budget Deficits Is Misleading, Because Massachusetts Law Requires The State To Balance Its Budget Every Year. Romney Had No Choice But To Sign A Balanced Budget Every Year.” [Washington Post Fact Checker, 8/10/12]UNDER ROMNEY, SPENDING INCREASED BY 22 PERCENT – NEARLY DOUBLE THE RATE OF INFLATION…Los Angeles Times: “State Spending Rose By 22% On Romney's Watch, Nearly Double The Rate Of Inflation.” [Los Angeles Times, 6/9/12]…INCREASING BY AN AVERAGE OF 6.5% EACH YEARNew York Times: “Under Mr. Romney, State Spending Went From $22.3 Billion To $28.1 Billion, An Annual Increase Of 6.5 Percent.” [New York Times, 12/31/07]Romney Used Federal STimulus Dollars To Boost To State’s Stabilization FundMassachusetts Received $550 Million From Federal Stimulus Funds.? “Massachusetts is due to collect a one-time infusion of $550 million in federal funds as a result of the economic-stimulus package passed yesterday by Congress, money that will help relieve a state budget deficit projected to reach $3 billion next fiscal year. Most of the funds will be paid to the state in fiscal 2004, which begins on July 1, Gov. Mitt Romney announced yesterday.” [Lowell Sun, 5/24/03]Headline: Stimulus Package, Big Boost To State [Lowell Sun, 5/24/03]Romney Transferred $99.1 Million From Federal Stimulus Funds Into The Massachusetts Stabilization Fund.?[Massachusetts Office Of The Treasurer, Statement Of Information, P. A-21,?3/17/05]Romney Signed Legislation To Send Federal Stimulus Money Into State Stabilization Fund.?? On November 21, 2003, which included language saying “Notwithstanding any general or special law to the contrary, the comptroller shall deposit fiscal relief funds and increased federal Medicaid assistance percentage funds received from the federal government during fiscal years 2004…to the Federal Medicaid Assistance Percentage Escrow Fund, which shall be established and set up on the books of the commonwealth. This fund shall be subject to appropriation, shall contribute to the calculation of the consolidated net surplus pursuant to section 5C of chapter 29 of the General Laws, and shall expire June 30, 2005 at which time the comptroller shall transfer any remaining fund balance to the Stabilization Fund.” [Chapter 118 Of The Acts Of 2003, Section 1, Signed 11/21/03, emphasis added]IN MASSACHUSETTS, ROMNEY LEFT A BILLION DOLLAR DEFICIT TO HIS SUCCESSOR New York Times: Romney Made The Economy A Central Part Of His 2008 Campaign But “Unemployment Is Still Relatively High” In Massachusetts And Romney Left A $1.3 Billion Budget Gap.? “As Mr. Romney seeks the Republican presidential nomination, his fiscal and economic achievements are central elements of his campaign. His first television commercial calls him ‘the Republican governor who turned around a Democratic state. ‘ But some in Massachusetts question how healthy the state’s economic and fiscal condition actually is. Unemployment is still relatively high, and the new governor, Deval L. Patrick, a Democrat, says he is grappling with a budget gap of $1.3 billion.” [New York Times, 3/16/07]?Romney Aides Admitted That Romney Left State Finances “In Much Rougher Shape Than Their Boss With Potomac Fever Had Admitted To.” From an op-ed by Peter Gelzinis: “Mitt insisted that when he waltzed out of the corner office a year ago, in a hyper choreographed and scripted moment, he left us with a surplus of a couple of billion dollars. Funny, but the aides Romney left behind weren't exactly saying the same thing when Gov.?Deval Patrick's number-crunchers started making noise about a potential budget deficit of close to a billion dollars. In off-the-record comments to reporters, those leftover Romney aides conceded that the state's finances were in much rougher shape than their boss with Potomac fever had admitted to. Even as Mitt's mouthpiece, Eric Fehrnstrom, scrambled to get out of Dodge a year ago, he declined to offer an on-the-record explanation for the huge discrepancy between what Mitt and his people were claiming in public and what they were privately telling their successors in Deval Patrick's administration.” [Boston Herald, op-ed, 2/1/08]?Massachusetts: Romney Left $2.6 Billion In DebtROMNEY RAISED MASSACHUSETTS’ DEBT BY $2.6 BILLION – A 16 PERCENT INCREASE IN JUST 4 YEARS ?Under Romney, Massachusetts’ Long-Term Debt Increased By 16.4% Or $2.6 Billion.?According to Massachusetts Information Statement Supplements attached to bond offerings, the Commonwealth had $16,063,162,000 in long-term debt as of January 1, 2003. As of October 1, 2006, shortly before Romney left the Governor’s Office, Massachusetts had $18,697,240,000 in long-term debt. This was an increase of $2,634,078,000 or 16.4%. [Massachusetts Office Of The Treasurer, Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Information Statement Supplement,?2/28/03, p. A-22; Massachusetts Office Of The Treasurer, Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Statement Of Information Supplement,?11/10/06, p. A-24]BY THE END OF ROMNEY’S TERM MASSACHUSETTS RANKED FIRST IN THE NATION FOR HIGHEST PER CAPITA DEBT?The Republican Headline: “Mass. Tops U.S. As Debtor State.” [The Republican, 2/3/07]?The Tax Foundation Listed Massachusetts As Ranked With Highest State Debt Per Capita At The End Of Fiscal Year 2007. The Tax Foundation listed Massachusetts debt per capita as $10,546 at the end of fiscal year 2007. It was first in the nation, while Alaska was second. [Tax Foundation, Facts & Figures, 2009]Massachusetts: Household Income Fell While It Rose NationallyUNDER ROMNEY, MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD INCOME FELL BY NEARLY $600 WHILE HOUSEHOLD INCOME ROSE NATIONALLYUnder Romney, Median Household Income In Massachusetts Fell By Nearly $600 While It Rose By $726 Nationally.?During the four years Romney was governor, median household income in Massachusetts fell $589, while it rose $726 for the country as a whole. [, accessed?6/3/12]Under Romney, Massachusetts’ Median Household Income Fell By 0.98% While Nationally, Median Household Income Rose By 1.41%. According to Census data, the 2002 Median Household Income was $60,422 in 2010 dollars. By 2006, income was $59,833 which was a 0.98% fall. According to Census data, the 2002 median household income nationally was $51,398 in 2010 dollars. By 2006, it rose to $52,124, a 1.41% increase. [Census Median Household Income, Accessed 5/10/12] Massachusetts: Poor Job CreationDURING HIS 2002 RUN FOR GOVERNOR, ROMNEY VOWED TO MAKE JOB CREATION THE TOP PRIORITY OF HIS ADMINISTRATION2002 Romney Campaign Press Release Headline: “Romney/Healey Set Better Jobs As Top Priority.” [Romney-Healey Campaign Press Release, accessed 8/11/11; Romney Campaign Newsletter Off The Record, accessed 7/26/02]2002 Romney Campaign Website’s Women For Romney Page: “Mitt Will Be The Top Salesman For The State?Working Hard To Protect And Create Jobs.” [Women For Romney Campaign Web Page, accessed 8/11/11]Romney: “I'm Going To Go Out During Those Sixty Days And Call On Those Companies. I'm Going To Work As A Tireless Salesman To Assure That We Bring More Jobs To Massachusetts.” Romney: “And I'm going to go out during those sixty days and call on those companies. I'm going to work as a tireless salesman to assure that we bring more jobs to Massachusetts. It's a high priority. It's critical. I believe in these next sixty days... I wish I were already in the governor's office to get this plan underway.” [Worcester Debate, 10/1/02]UNDER ROMNEY, MASSACHUSETTS RANKED 47TH OUT OF 50 IN JOB CREATIONWall Street Journal: “The Most Powerful Statistic May Be That Under Mr. Romney, Massachusetts Was 47th Out Of 50 States In Job Creation, Down From 36th When He Took Office.”?[Wall Street Journal, 5/31/12]USA Today Fact Check: Under Romney, Massachusetts Net Job Growth That Was “Far Slower” Than The National Average And Ranked 47th In Job Growth Over The Entirety Of Romney’s Term. “Unlike Obama, Romney took office during an economic uptick. Massachusetts had a net job growth of 1.4 percent under Romney. However, that was far slower growth than the national average of 5.3%. As Romney's opponents have frequently, and correctly, noted, Massachusetts ranked 47th in job growth over the entirety of Romney's term. The only states that did worse: Louisiana, Michigan and Ohio.” [Fact Check, USA Today, 1/5/12]WHEN ROMNEY ENTERED OFFICE, THE STATE UNEMPLOYMENT RATE WAS LOWER THAN THE NATIONAL AVERAGE. WHEN HE LEFT OFFICE, IT WAS HIGHER THAN THE NATIONAL AVERAGE ?When Romney Entered Office, The Massachusetts Unemployment Rate Was Lower Than The National Average. When He Left Office, The Massachusetts Unemployment Rate Was Higher Than The National Average. [. Accessed 5/22/12]?Under Romney, Massachusetts’ Unemployment Dropped From 5.6% In December 2002, To 4.7% In December 2006. [Bureau of Labor Statistics, , 9/16/11]?Nationally, Unemployment Dropped From 6.0% To 4.4% While Romney Was Governor Of Massachusetts. [. Accessed 5/22/12]??UNDER ROMNEY GOVERNMENT JOB GROWTH INCREASED AT A RATE 6 TIMES THAT OF THE PRIVATE SECTORUnder Romney, State Government Employment Increase At 6 Times The Rate Of Private Sector Job Growth. [, accessed 9/23/11]Under Romney, The Number Of State Government Employee Increased By 5,300. In December 2002, Massachusetts state government employed 112,000 people and in December of 2006 employment was at 17,300. [, accessed 9/23/11]MANUFACTURING DECLINED BY TWICE THE NATIONAL AVERAGE IN MASSACHUSETTS UNDER ROMNEYUnder Romney Manufacturing Jobs In Massachusetts Declined By Twice The National Average—“The Third Worst Record In The Country.” Andrew Sum and Joseph McLaughlin from Center for Market Studies at Northeastern University wrote, “Manufacturing payroll employment throughout the nation declined by nearly 1.1 million or 7 percent between 2002 and 2006, but in Massachusetts it declined by more than 14 percent, the third worst record in the country.” [Sum and McLaughlin, Op-Ed, Boston Globe, 7/29/07]Massachusetts: Romney Increased Taxes And Fees, And Pushed A Tax Cut That Benefitted The WealthyROMNEY RAISED OR CREATED MORE THAN 1,000 TAXES AND FEESAs Governor, Mitt Romney Raised Or Created More Than 1,000 Taxes And Fees– Including Fees On Drivers Licenses, Gas, Selling Milk, Buying A Home And Registering A Mortgage, On People Who Are Blind, And Professional Nurses And Barbers.?[Click For A Full List Of Romney’s Fees]ROMNEY PASSED A TAX CUT THAT OVERWHELMINGLY BENEFITTED 278 OF THE WEALTHIEST INDIVIDUALS IN MASSACHUSETTS2005: Romney Proposed Changing The Effective Date Of The Capital Gains Tax Increase From 1/1/02 To 1/1/03, Giving Those Affected An Additional Year Of Tax Relief. “Governor Mitt Romney today signed legislation that prevents thousands of Massachusetts taxpayers from having to pay retroactive taxes on financial transactions that occurred more than three years ago... The court set the effective date of the tax increase at January 1, 2002. However, this action exposed nearly 50,000 taxpayers to an additional $200 million in state taxes on gains realized during the first four months of 2002. Through a bill filed in June and an amendment made to existing legislation last month, Romney proposed to set the effective date of the tax law change at January 1, 2003, a change that would prevent retroactive taxation. Earlier this week, the Legislature adopted Romney's proposal.” [Press Release, Mitt Romney, 12/8/05]Massachusetts Was Required To Refund Up To $275 Million To Taxpayers Who “Paid The Higher Capital Gains Tax Rate In The Last Eight Months Of 2002.” “With the change in date, the state is required to refund between $225 million and $275 million to the estimated 157,000 taxpayers who paid the higher capital gains tax rate in the last eight months of 2002.” [Press Release, Mitt Romney, 12/8/05]Associated Press: “About $78 Million Of That Is Owed By Just 278 Wealthy People, Who Would Pay An Average Of $281,000 Each.” “Gov. Mitt Romney proposed on Friday that Massachusetts residents forced to pay retroactive capital gains taxes from 2002 get the money back in rebates over three years… The Department of Revenue has already begun mailing out the new tax bills. About $78 million of that is owed by just 278 wealthy people, who would pay an average of $281,000 each.” [Associated Press, 11/18/05]ROMNEY RAISED TAXES AND FEES BY $750 MILLION ANNUALLY ON MASSACHUSETTS' MIDDLE CLASS FAMILIES AND BUSINESSES Romney: “We Raised Fees On All Sorts Of Things In Massachusetts.”?ROMNEY: “We raised fees on all sorts of things in Massachusetts. Fees hadn’t been touched, in some cases, for decades, and we said, look, we’re going to raise the fees… we’re not going to raise the fees on things that are broad based like driver’s licenses and license plates because everybody gets hit with that. But on those things that are done by a minority of people and where the state provides a service, we did raise fees, yeah.” [Howie Carr, 12/21/11]Romney’s Campaign “States Incorrectly That He Did Not Raise Taxes As Governor.” “A Romney response ad released Friday states incorrectly that he did not raise taxes as governor.” [Los Angeles Times, 6/9/12]Washington Post?Fact Checker: “The Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation Estimated That The Former Governor Raised An Extra $750 Million Per Year Through Fees And Loophole Closures.”?[Washington Post, Fact Checker,?6/12/12]National Conference of State Legislatures: Massachusetts Imposed More Fee Hikes Than Any Other State in the Nation In 2003. [Congress Daily, 8/28/03]Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation: Fee And Tax Increases In Romney’s First Budget “Will Surely Hit Taxpayers’ Pocketbooks As Hard As Any Tax Increase And, Many Would Argue, Less Fairly As Well.” [Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation 8/11/2003]Cato Institute On Romney’s Claims He Stood By A No-New-Taxes Pledge As Governor: “Mostly A Myth.” [Cato Institute’s Fiscal Policy Report Card on America’s Governors: 2006, 10/24/06]Club For Growth: Romney’s “Fee Hikes And ‘Loophole’ Closures Are Troubling.” [AP, 8/28/07]Under Romney, Massachusetts’ Tax Burden Increased 6.25%. According to the Tax Foundation, Massachusetts’ tax burden in 2002 was 9.6%. When Romney left office, the burden had risen to 10.2%, which was a 6.25% change under Romney. Tax burden compares the total state and local per capita taxes paid against the per capita income. [Tax Foundation – Massachusetts' State and Local Tax Burden 1977-2009, accessed 3/2/12]Under Romney, The “Total State And Local Per Capita Taxes Paid” Rose By $1,227 Which Was A 30.4% Increase. According to the Tax Foundation, Massachusetts’ total state and local taxes paid per capita was $ $4,038 in 2002. In 2006, Massachusetts’ total state and local taxes paid per capita was $ $5,265. [Tax Foundation – Massachusetts' State and Local Tax Burden 1977-2009, accessed 3/2/12]ROMNEY SLASHED FUNDING FOR LOCAL AID, WHICH MADE PROPERTY TAXES SOARExecutive Director Of The Massachusetts Municipal Association: Romney’s Cuts In State Spending On Local Aid To Balance The State Budget Have Forced Local Property Taxes To Hit The Roof. “Romney’s cuts in state spending on local aid to balance the state budget have forced local property taxes to hit the roof, said Geoff Beckwith, executive director of the Massachusetts Municipal Association. There certainly is an increased reliance on the property tax, it’s the highest it’s been in the last 25 years, Beckwith said. That’s a direct result of the local aid cuts that occurred during the fiscal crisis.” [The Patriot Ledger, 12/16/05]: Romney Cut Aid To Local Cities And Counties Which In Turn “Forced” Communities To Cut Services And Raise Local Taxes And Fees. From a fact check of Restore Our Future Super PAC’s first TV ad: “In addition, Romney cut aid to local cities and counties. In 2004, Romney cut nearly 5 percent, or about $230 million, from the local aid budget. The Massachusetts Municipal Association, representing the state’s cities and towns, said Romney’s cut ‘forced communities statewide to cut services and raise local taxes and fees.’” [, 12/9/11]Boston Globe’s Steve Bailey: The “Surge In Property Tax” Was Created In Part By A “Huge Cut In Local Aid.” “The surge in property tax has been created by two factors: most importantly, the huge cut in local aid forced by the state's fiscal crisis. And secondarily by the shift from commercial taxpayers to residential taxpayers as home prices climbed and commercial property values declined.” [Columnist Steve Bailey, 9/6/06]Romney’s No-New-Taxes Pledge Of “Little Comfort” To Those Facing Higher Property Taxes As A Result Of Local Aid Cuts. “This year's override and debt-exclusion explosion was touched off by a roughly $ 230 million local-aid cut in the state spending plans floated by the House of Representatives and Gov. Mitt?Romney, who has pledged not to raise taxes. That?pledge?may offer little comfort, however, in communities facing stiff property-tax hikes.” [Boston Herald, 5/11/03]PROPERTY TAXES ROSE 30.4% UNDER ROMNEY, AND MADE LOCALITIES DEPENDED ON PROPERTY TAXES FOR REVENUE AT A 25 YEAR HIGH RATEUnder Romney, The “Total State And Local Per Capita Taxes Paid” Rose By $1,227 Which Was A 30.4% Increase. According to the Tax Foundation, Massachusetts’ total state and local taxes paid per capita was $ $4,038 in 2002. In 2006, Massachusetts’ total state and local taxes paid per capita was $ $5,265. [Tax Foundation – Massachusetts' State and Local Tax Burden 1977-2009, accessed 3/2/12]Romney’s Spending Cuts To Localities Increased Fees And Made Cities And Towns Have To Use Property Taxes For 53% Of Their Budgets—A 25 Year High.? “The effects of the initial deep spending cuts are still being felt, especially in cities and towns, which absorbed reductions of about $400 million, or 9 percent, in the first 18 months of Romney’s term. Cities and towns now rely on property taxes to pay 53 percent of their budgets, a 25-year high and up from 49 percent before Romney took office, said Geoffrey Beckwith, executive director of the Massachusetts Municipal Association. Many communities cut services and raised fees as a result, he said.” [Boston Globe, 6/29/07]CLICK FOR FEESMassachusetts Ranked 48th in Business Start-Up GrowthMASSACHUSETTS RANKED 48TH IN BUSINESS START-UP GROWTH UNDER ROMNEYComparing The Last Full Year Before Romney Took Office And The Last Full Year Of Romney’s Administration, Massachusetts Ranked 48th Out Of 50 States In Business Start-Up Growth. [Calculated from , 9/23/11]Bush Ties: Romney Plans To Do What Bush DidROMNEY’S ECONOMIC PLAN: DO JUST WHAT GEORGE BUSH DIDRomney Said Of His Economic Plan “The First Thing To Do In A Tough Economy [Just] As George Bush Did When He Was In A Recession.” CHETRY: “Let's talk really quickly about the economy. You had spoken on the stump -- I heard a couple of your speeches. And you said you know what to do. You know how to get the country on a better track. As fears of recession continue to grow, what would be your economic plan?” ROMNEY: “Well, the first thing to do in a tough economy as George Bush did when he was in a recession is to lower the tax rate on middle-income Americans. And for me, what that means is all of the income on savings, the interest, the dividends, and capital gains; I would tax at a zero rate for all middle income American, as people earning under $200,000 a year. Number two, I begin a very aggressive investment program in new technologies related to energy, fuel savings, and the like so we can become free of our dependence on foreign oil. Number four, I'd make sure that we continue to trade around the world. That's good for us. But we're going to have to get other partners to trade in a more fair basis. China, in particular, doesn't follow safety requirements, doesn't protect our patents and our designs and manipulates their currencies such that their products are given a deep discount. That hurts the sales of U.S. products. And finally, I want to invest in technology-related manufacturing in this country. I believe that manufacturing is an important part of America's economic base and we cannot allow it to continue to decline.” [American Morning, CNN, 1/8/08]Washington Post’s Ezra Klein: “Romney Can’t Explain How His Policies Differ From That Of George W. Bush.” [Ezra Klein, Washington Post, 7/27/12]ROMNEY TOUTED PRESIDENT BUSH AS A GOOD ECONOMIC STEWARD WHO INHERITED A DICEY ECONOMY AND LEAD US THROUGH A RECESSIONRomney Said “Yes” George W. Bush Was A Good Economic Steward. Fineman: “Do you think George W. Bush has been a good economic steward?” Romney: “Yes, I think George Bush has faced some extraordinary challenges that have tested his mettle. The first was a declining economy when he came in, which shortly thereafter got hit by 9/11 and the Internet bubble burst. And he was able to take swift action to get the economy to turn around … I likewise think that in the current situation, with us having been hit by the subprime-mortgage crisis spreading throughout our economy, that he has moved quickly to reach agreement with Congress to put in place a stimulus plan.” [Romney Interview with Howard Fineman, Newsweek, 2/4/08]2004: Romney Defended Bush During An Economic Downturn, Claiming “The People Of America Recognize That The Slowdown In Jobs That Occurred During The Early Years Of The Bush Administration Were The Result Of A Perfect Storm” And That Any Effort To Claim “Oh, This Recession And The Slowdown In Jobs Was The Result Of, Somehow, This President Being Magically Elected” Is “Poppycock.” “But Romney made a similar argument to the one Obama makes when it was President Bush who was under attack in 2004. Back then, Bush was facing heat from Democratic presidential nominee John F. Kerry, who was blaming the president for leading the country into a recession and then failing to lead it out. Romney, however, rejected that line of attack. Like Obama these days, he put a greater emphasis on the economic factors that greeted Bush when he took office. ‘The people of America recognize that the slowdown in jobs that occurred during the early years of the Bush administration were the result of a perfect storm. And an effort by one candidate to somehow say, “Oh, this recession and the slowdown in jobs was the result of, somehow, this president being magically elected,” the people of America just dismiss that as being poppycock, and they recognize that,’ Romney said in early 2004, at the opening of Bush’s Massachusetts headquarters, according to a videotape of his remarks that is part of the Romney administration’s records held at the state archives in Boston.” [Boston Globe, 4/18/12]Boston Globe Headline: “Mitt Romney Defended Bush In 2004 Over Inherited Dicey Economy.” [Boston Globe, 4/18/12]ROMNEY’S TAX PLAN IS THE BUSH TAX CUTS ON STEROIDS - ROMNEY PROPOSED $5 TRILLION IN NEW TAX CUTS, ON TOP OF MAKING PERMANENT THE BUSH TAX CUTS FOR THE WEALTHYRomney’s Tax Proposal Is The “Bush Tax Cuts On Steroids” Cutting Taxes For Americans Making Over $1 Million And Raising Taxes On Those Making Less Than $10,000. “The simplest way to conceive of Mitt Romney's tax proposal is the Bush Tax Cuts on steroids. It's not sweeping tax reform. The rates don't change. The deductions stay put. Instead, it's a time machine back to 2008 ... with a big pair of scissors to make some additional cuts.The GOP frontrunner would permanently extend the Bush/Obama tax cuts in addition to eliminating both the estate tax and the tax on capital gains for ‘non-rich’ families. He would not extend the majority of the tax cuts and tax hikes passed in the Obama administration…? For a family making less than $10,000 a year, the average tax bill would go up by $112. For a family making more than $1,000,000 a year, the average tax bill would go down by about $145,000.” [Thompson, Atlantic, 1/5/12]Center On Budget And Policy Priorities: Romney’s New Tax Cuts Would Cost $4.9 Trillion Over A Decade, On Top Of The Cost Of Extending The Bush Tax Cuts. “The Tax Policy Center estimates that the Romney tax plan would lose about $480 billion in tax revenue in calendar year 2015, beyond the revenues losses inherent in maintaining current policy (such as continuing all of the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts).? Over the 2014-2022 period, that implies a total reduction in revenues of about $4.9 trillion, relative to current tax policy.” [Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 5/21/12]Romney Supported Ohio’s Question 2ROMNEY SAID HE WAS “110 PERCENT BEHIND” OHIO’S QUESTION 2 WHICH WOULD HAVE CURBED THE RIGHTS OF FIREFIGHTERS AND POLICE OFFICERS FROM NEGOTIATING OVER BENEFITS, EQUIPMENT AND OTHER ISSUESRomney: “With Regards To Question 2 Which Is The Collective Bargaining Question, I Am 110 Percent Behind Gov. Kasich In Support Of That, That Question.”??“I'm sorry if I created any confusion in that regard. I fully support Gov. Kasich’s, I think it’s called question 2 in Ohio. Fully support that… But with regards to question 2 which is the collective bargaining question I am 110 percent behind Gov. Kasich in support of that,? that question.” [Romney Presser, Fairfax VA, 10/26/11]Ohio Issue 2 Would Have Prevented Public-Employee Union From Collective Bargaining. “Known as Issue 2, the ballot proposition asked voters to decide whether to implement or throw out a recently passed law, known as SB5, that would prevent public-employee unions from collective bargaining, prohibit strikes and force teachers, police offers and firefighters to contribute a set amount toward their health benefits and pensions.” [TIME, 11/8/11]Kasich Spearheaded The Bill To Curb The Rights Of 350,000 Public Workers – Included Firefighters And Police Officers – To Negotiate Over Benefits, Equipment And Other Issues. “Ohio Issue 2 (as the law was called on the ballot) was passing with more than 60 percent of the vote late Tuesday night.? Gov. John Kasich (R) took office in January vowing to curb unions’ power. But unions recoiled when a bill he spearheaded curbed the rights of 350,000 public workers — including firefighters and police officers — to negotiate over benefits, equipment and other issues.” [Washington Post, 11/9/11]EDUCATIONPRO-POTUSPresident Obama Has Fought To Make Higher Education Affordable For All AmericansPRESIDENT OBAMA OFFERED TAX RELIEF TO STUDENTS AND FAMILIES PAYING FOR TUITIONPresident Obama Established The American Opportunity Tax Credit, Which Provides Up To $10,000 For Up To Four Years In Tuition Relief. “The President created the American Opportunity Tax Credit (AOTC) as part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, which he signed into law in February 2009. The AOTC replaces the Hope Scholarship credit for Tax Years 2009 and 2010, increasing the benefits for nearly all Hope credit recipients and many other students by providing a maximum benefit up to $2,500 per student – 100 percent of their first $2,000 in tuition and 25 percent of the next $2,000 –expanding the income range over which taxpayers can claim a credit, and making the credit partially refundable. 4.5 Million Students and Families Received a Tax Refund from the AOTC in 2009 With an Average Value of $800, which they would not have been eligible for in 2008.” [Department of the Treasury, 10/12/10]In 2011, 9.4 Million Families Benefitted From The American Opportunity Tax Credit. ?“Through the American Opportunity Tax Credit, 9.4 million families in 2011 received as much as $2,500 for tuition, fees, and textbook expenses.” [The Christian Science Monitor, 01/13/12]PRESIDENT OBAMA PROPOSED TO CUT THE GROWTH OF TUITION COSTS IN HALF OVER THE NEXT DECADEPresident Obama: “Help Us Work With Colleges And Universities To Cut In Half The Growth Of Tuition Costs Over The Next Ten Years.” “Help us work with colleges and universities to cut in half the growth of tuition costs over the next ten years. We can meet that goal together.” [President Obama’s Remarks At The Democratic National Convention, 09/07/12]PRESIDENT OBAMA PREVENTED INTEREST RATES FROM DOUBLING FOR NEW STUDENT LOANS AND ELIMINATED BANK MIDDLEMEN ON LOANS TO DOUBLE FUNDING FOR PELL GRANTSPresident Barack Obama Signed Legislation Preventing Interest Rate Increases On New Loans To Millions Of College Students, Saying It Would "Make A Real Difference." “President Barack Obama signed legislation Friday maintaining jobs on transportation projects and preventing interest rate increases on new loans to millions of college students, saying it would ‘make a real difference’ for millions of Americans.” [The Associated Press, 07/06/12]President Obama Signed Legislation Stopping Interest Rates From Doubling For An Estimated 7.4 Million Students Expected To Get New Loans This Year.“It also keeps interest rates of 3.4 percent for subsidized Stafford loans for undergraduates. If Congress hadn't acted, the rate would have doubled beginning July 1 for an estimated 7.4 million students expected to get new loans this year, adding an extra $1,000 to the average cost of each loan.” [The Associated Press, 07/06/12]Student Loan Reform Eliminated $68 Billion Paid To Banks Acting As Intermediaries To Invest In Pell Grants. “The new law will eliminate fees paid to private banks to act as intermediaries in providing loans to college students and use much of the nearly $68 billion in savings over 11 years to expand Pell grants and make it easier for students to repay outstanding loans after graduating. The law also invests $2 billion in community colleges over the next four years to provide education and career training programs to workers eligible for trade adjustment aid after dislocation in their industries.” [New York Times, 3/30/10]President Obama Doubled Funding For Pell Grants, Raising The Maximum Award And Increasing The Number Of Recipients To Nearly 10 Million Students. “Thanks in part to these new investments, President Obama has roughly doubled funding for the need-based Pell Grant program, raising the maximum award from $4,731 in fiscal year 2008 to an estimated $5,635 for fiscal year 2013 and increasing the number of recipients by approximately 50 percent to nearly 10 million students.” [Department of Education Budget Summary, Accessed 04/15/12]President Obama Made Education A National Priority With Race To The TopTHE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION HAS MADE EDUCATION A NATIONAL PRIORITY WITH RACE TO THE TOP, THE LARGEST COMPETITIVE INVESTMENT IN SCHOOL REFORM IN THE NATION’S HISTORYPresident Obama's Race To The Top Is The Largest-Ever Federal Competitive Investment In School Reform. “The $4.35 billion Race to the Top Fund is the largest-ever federal competitive investment in school reform.” [Department of Education Fact Sheet, 12/2009]For Less Than 1 Percent Of Total Education Spending Nationwide, 19 States Received Race To The Top Funding, Benefitting 22 Million Students. “For less than 1% of total education spending nationwide—19 states received Race to the Top funding, benefitting 22 million students.” [White House, Accessed 04/16/12]Race To The Top Has Inspired Dramatic Education Reform Nationwide, Leading 46 States To Pursue Higher Standards. “Race to the Top (RTT), launched in 2009, has inspired dramatic education reform nationwide, leading 46 states to pursue higher standards, data-driven decisions making, greater support for teachers, and turnaround interventions in persistently low-performing schools. The next phase proposes to build on those principles at the classroom level, supplying teachers with the strategies and tools they need to help every student learn at his or her own pace.’ [Department of Education, 05/22/12]PRESIDENT OBAMA PROPOSED TO RECRUIT AND PREPARE 100,000 MATH AND SCIENCE TEACHERS OVER THE NEXT DECADEPresident Obama Has Set A Goal Of Preparing More Than 100,000 New Math And Science Teachers Over The Next 10 Years. “Obama has set a goal of preparing more than 100,000 math and science teachers and training a million additional math, technology, engineering and science graduates over the next decade.” [Seattle Times, 02/07/12]Pushback: President Obama Is Beholden To Teachers’ UnionsPRESIDENT OBAMA HAS GARNERED PRAISE ON EDUCATION FROM REPUBLICANS, AND TEACHERS’ UNIONS HAVE CRITICIZED HIS SUPPORT FOR CHARTER SCHOOLSPRESIDENT OBAMA HAS CALLED FOR GREATER TEACHER ACCOUNTABILITYPresident Obama: We Going To Empower Teachers, But “We’re Also Going To Hold Them Accountable.” “We're going to not just have kids taught to the test, but we're going to make sure that we empower teachers, but we're also going to hold them accountable and improve how we train our principals and our teachers. So we're willing to make a whole bunch of reforms.” [LinkedIn Town Hall, 9/26/11]PRESIDENT OBAMA HAS SHOWN HIS SUPPORT FOR GREATER TEACHER ACCOUNTABILITY THROUGH EXPANDED MERIT PAY, RACE TO THE TOP, AND EVALUATION REQUIREMENTS IN NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND WAIVERSSince The Beginning Of His Administration, President Obama Has Supported Expanded Merit Pay For Teachers. “President Barack Obama laid out a broad education vision Tuesday that includes expanded merit pay for teachers and more charter schools.” [Wall Street Journal, 03/11/09]Under The No Child Left Behind Waiver Deal, States Must Show They Will, Among Other Reforms, Develop Meaningful Teacher and Principal Evaluation Systems. “Under the deal, the states must show they will prepare children for college and careers, set new targets for improving achievement among all students, develop meaningful teacher and principal evaluation systems, reward the best performing schools and focus help on the ones doing the worst.” [New York Daily News, 02/09/12]President Obama Expanded And Revised The Teacher Incentive Fund, Which Was Established To Provide Grants To Schools That Utilize Merit-Based Salary Plans For Teachers And Principals. “In addition to creating the Race To The Top, President Obama successfully expanded and revised the Teacher Investment Fund (TIF). The TIF was established by President George W. Bush in 2006 to provide grants to schools that utilize merit-based salary plans for teachers and principals.” [Tampa Bay Times, Politifact, 02/22/12]President Obama Has A Plan To Reduce Tuition GrowthPRESIDENT OBAMA HAS PUT FORTH A PLAN TO REDUCE COLLEGE TUITION BY HALF OVER THE NEXT DECADEPRESIDENT OBAMA PROPOSED TO CUT THE GROWTH OF TUITION COSTS IN HALF OVER THE NEXT DECADEPresident Obama: “Help Us Work With Colleges And Universities To Cut In Half The Growth Of Tuition Costs Over The Next Ten Years.” “Help us work with colleges and universities to cut in half the growth of tuition costs over the next ten years. We can meet that goal together.” [President Obama’s Remarks At The Democratic National Convention, 09/07/12]The Administration’s Budget Offers $1 Billion In "Race To The Top"-Style Grants To States That Slow Their Tuition Growth And Sustain Their Higher-Education Budgets. “The election-year budget, which comes at a time of shrinking revenue and rising deficits, would also double the number of work-study jobs and reward colleges and states that slow their tuition growth and sustain their higher-education budgets. As the president promised in his State of the Union address and a speech at the University of Michigan late last month, the administration would offer $1-billion in "Race to the Top"-style grants to states and expand the Perkins Loan program from $1-billion to $8.5-billion, allocating additional aid to institutions that offer relatively low net tuition, graduate relatively high proportions of Pell recipients, and prepare graduates to obtain employment and repay their loans.” [Chronicle of Higher Education, 02/13/12]President Obama Has Proposed Federal Campus-Based Aid Reform That Rewards Colleges That Set Responsible Tuition Policy, Provide Good Value To Students And Families, Serve Low-Income Students. “The President’s proposed reform of federal campus-based aid aims to reward those colleges that keep tuition from spiraling too high and that provide greater value for students. Through modifications to this federal aid program, the Obama Administration would improve the distribution of campus-based financial aid and expand the availability of federal aid available to students by rewarding colleges and universities that succeed in: Setting responsible tuition policy, offering relatively lower net tuition prices and/or restraining tuition growth; providing good value to students and families, offering quality education and training that prepares graduates to obtain employment and repay their loans; serving low-income students, enrolling and graduating relatively higher numbers of Pell eligible students” [White House, Accessed 04/15/12]The President’s Proposed First In The World Competition To Develop, Validate, And Or Scale Up Innovative And Effective Strategies For Long-Term Productivity In Higher Education. “The President’s proposed First in the World Competition will improve long-term productivity in higher education by investing $55 million to enable individual colleges and nonprofit organizations to develop, validate, or scale up innovative and effective strategies for boosting productivity and enhancing quality on campuses. This initiative will provide modest start-up funding for projects at individual colleges and universities that could lead to longer-term and larger productivity improvements—such as course redesign through the improved use of technology; early college preparation activities to lessen the need for remediation; competency-based approaches to gaining college credit; and other ideas aimed at spurring changes in the culture of higher education.” [White House, Accessed 09/11/12]CONTRASTPresident Obama Has Invested In Higher Education While Romney Would Slash Funding For Student LoansPRESIDENT OBAMA HAS FOUGHT TO PUT HIGHER EDUCATION WITHIN REACH FOR ALL AMERICANS AND OFFERED TAX RELIEF TO STUDENTS AND FAMILIES PAYING FOR TUITIONPresident Obama Established The American Opportunity Tax Credit, Which Provides Up To $10,000 For Up To Four Years In Tuition Relief. “The President created the American Opportunity Tax Credit (AOTC) as part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, which he signed into law in February 2009. The AOTC replaces the Hope Scholarship credit for Tax Years 2009 and 2010, increasing the benefits for nearly all Hope credit recipients and many other students by providing a maximum benefit up to $2,500 per student – 100 percent of their first $2,000 in tuition and 25 percent of the next $2,000 –expanding the income range over which taxpayers can claim a credit, and making the credit partially refundable. 4.5 Million Students and Families Received a Tax Refund from the AOTC in 2009 With an Average Value of $800, which they would not have been eligible for in 2008.” [Department of the Treasury, 10/12/10]In 2011, 9.4 Million Families Benefitted From The American Opportunity Tax Credit. ?“Through the American Opportunity Tax Credit, 9.4 million families in 2011 received as much as $2,500 for tuition, fees, and textbook expenses.” [The Christian Science Monitor, 01/13/12]PRESIDENT OBAMA PREVENTED INTEREST RATES FROM DOUBLING FOR NEW STUDENT LOANS AND ELIMINATED BANK MIDDLEMEN ON LOANS TO DOUBLE FUNDING FOR PELL GRANTSPresident Obama Signed Legislation Stopping Interest Rates From Doubling For An Estimated 7.4 Million Students Expected To Get New Loans This Year.“It also keeps interest rates of 3.4 percent for subsidized Stafford loans for undergraduates. If Congress hadn't acted, the rate would have doubled beginning July 1 for an estimated 7.4 million students expected to get new loans this year, adding an extra $1,000 to the average cost of each loan.” [The Associated Press, 07/06/12]Student Loan Reform Eliminated $68 Billion Paid To Banks Acting As Intermediaries To Invest In Pell Grants. “The new law will eliminate fees paid to private banks to act as intermediaries in providing loans to college students and use much of the nearly $68 billion in savings over 11 years to expand Pell grants and make it easier for students to repay outstanding loans after graduating. The law also invests $2 billion in community colleges over the next four years to provide education and career training programs to workers eligible for trade adjustment aid after dislocation in their industries.” [New York Times, 3/30/10]President Obama Doubled Funding For Pell Grants, Raising The Maximum Award And Increasing The Number Of Recipients To Nearly 10 Million Students. “Thanks in part to these new investments, President Obama has roughly doubled funding for the need-based Pell Grant program, raising the maximum award from $4,731 in fiscal year 2008 to an estimated $5,635 for fiscal year 2013 and increasing the number of recipients by approximately 50 percent to nearly 10 million students.” [Department of Education Budget Summary, Accessed 04/15/12]ROMNEY WOULD RETURN THE MIDDLEMAN TO STUDENT LOANS AND SLASH FUNDING FOR PELL GRANTSIf Cuts Were Applied Across The Board, The Ryan Budget Would Slash Education, Meaning “9.6 Million Students Would See Their Pell Grants Fall By More Than $1000 In 2014, And, Over The Next Decade, Over One Million Students Would Lose Support Altogether.” “Yesterday, House Republicans released their budget resolution for FY 2013… On top of the roughly $1 trillion in cuts in the Budget Control Act, it would be difficult to overstate the radicalism of the domestic cuts proposed by the House budget resolution. In 2013, it would cut annual non-defense funding by 5 percent. By 2014, the resolution would cut this funding by 19 percent in purely nominal terms… 9.6 million students would see their Pell Grants fall by more than $1000 in 2014, and, over the next decade, over one million students would lose support altogether.” [Jeff Zients, Acting Director of the Office of Management and Budget, , 3/21/12]Steve Benen: “A Romney Administration Will Cut Pell Grants, Make It Harder To Get Student Loans, And Encourage Students Who Struggle With Tuition Costs To "Shop Around" Until They Can Find A College They Can Afford.”? ? [Steve Benen, MSNBC, 5/24/12]Romney’s Proposal To Repeal President Obama’s Overhaul To The Federal Student Loan Program Would Be “A Return To Bank-Based Student Lending.” “The presumed Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney pledged Wednesday that, if elected, he would reshape or do away with two major Obama administration higher education policy initiatives: the overhaul of the federal student loan program and tighter regulations on for-profit colleges…He also calls for a return to bank-based student lending, which was phased out beginning in 2010 as part of the health care overhaul.” [Inside Higher Ed, 5/24/12]Steve Benen: Romney’s Education Agenda “Vows To Bring The Middleman Back” To The Student-Loan System. “One of the overlooked accomplishments of President Obama's term is the reform of the student-loan system -- an effort that was decades in the making, but had been blocked by Republicans and bank lobbyists until 2010. Under the old system, the student-loan industry received billions in taxpayer subsidies to provide a service the government could perform for less. As Rachel explained on the show a month ago, in 2010, Democrats removed the middleman, streamlined the process, saved taxpayers a ton of money, and helped more young people get college degrees. Yesterday, Mitt Romney unveiled a new education agenda, which vows to bring the middleman back.” [Steve Benen, MSNBC, 5/24/12]Romney Champions For-Profit Colleges, Which Often Break Promises To StudentsROMNEY CHAMPIONS FOR-PROFIT COLLEGES, WHICH ARE OFTEN UNAFFORDABLE AND BREAK PROMISES TO STUDENTS Romney “Has Emerged As An Enthusiastic Backer Of For-Profit Education And Singled Out Full Sail And The University Of Phoenix For Praise.” “In this election, Romney has emerged as an enthusiastic backer of for-profit education and singled out Full Sail and the University of Phoenix for praise, as the The New York Times noted earlier this year.” [USA Today, 3/29/12]Romney Praised “The Advent Of For-Profit Institutions Of Higher Learning, Which I Know The President And His Supporters Don’t Like” And Said “I Actually Like The Idea Of Competition In Higher Education.” Romney was asked in an editorial board interview with the Ames Tribune, “The cost of education has just sky rocketed. Is there anything in your kit bag that is addressing that?” He responded, “I happen to think that competition is a great source of invention and improvement.?I see the advent of for-profit institutions of higher learning, which I know the president and his supporters don’t like. I actually like the idea of competition in higher education.” [Ames Tribune Editorial Board Interview, 12/29/11]Romney Said He Believed That Competition In Higher Education From For-Profit Colleges Would “Improve The Cost Of Education.” Romney: “My belief is that what will improve the cost of education is competition between institutions of higher learning. I happen to think that even some of these for profit universities such as the University of Phoenix and others, that they will drive competition and that students are going to say you know what it’s not worth tens of thousands of dollars to go to this college when I can go to that college for half the price and get a very good education. I think that competition will make a difference.” [Romney, Reno Gazette Journal Editorial Board, 2/2/12]For-Profit Schools Charge Tuition That Is Much Higher Than Their Public Counterparts. ”The report also noted that for-profit schools charge tuition that is much higher than their public counterparts. Bachelor's programs at for-profits costs 20% more than public schools, while an associate's degree at a for-profit institution is four times the cost.” [CNN Money, 07/30/12]On Average, The Harkin Report Found, Associate-Degree And Certificate Programs At For-Profit Colleges Cost About Four Times As Much As Community Colleges And Public Universities. “On average, the Harkin report found, associate-degree and certificate programs at for-profit colleges cost about four times as much as those at community colleges and public universities.” [New York Times, 07/30/12]The Government Accountability Office (GAO) And Other Investigators Have Found Evidence Of High-Pressure And Deceptive Recruiting Practices At For-Profit Institutions. “The Government Accountability Office (GAO) and other investigators have found evidence of high-pressure and deceptive recruiting practices at for-profit institutions. These recruiting practices may contribute to low graduation rates.” [Federal Registrar, Department of Education, 06/13/11]More Than A Quarter Of For-Profit Institutions Receive 80 Percent Of Their Revenues From Taxpayer-Financed Federal Student Aid. “More than a quarter of for-profit institutions receive 80 percent of their revenues from taxpayer-financed Federal student aid.” [Department of Education, 06/02/2011]President Obama Has Fought For Teachers As Romney Wants To Cut BackPRESIDENT OBAMA HELPED STATES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS KEEP HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF TEACHERS ON THE JOB, AND HAS A PLAN TO RECRUIT AND PREPARE 100,000 MATH AND SCIENCE TEACHERS OVER THE NEXT DECADEPRESIDENT OBAMA SUPPORTED NEARLY HALF A MILLION EDUCATION JOBS THROUGH THE RECOVERY ACT AND THE EDUCATION JOBS FUNDThe Obama Administration Was Able To Support Approximately 300,000 Education Jobs Through The Recovery Act. “In 2009, the President effectively deployed stabilization funds for state education budgets through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, which enabled states and schools districts to keep approximately 300,000 educators on the job in the face of budget cuts caused by the economic recession.” [White House, Accessed 04/15/12]In 2010, President Obama Signed Into Law The Education Jobs Fund To Support 160,000 Education Jobs.?“President Barack Obama on Tuesday signed into law a $26 billion measure to help avoid teacher layoffs—a move Democrats claim is necessary in the wake of state and local government cutbacks. The House gave final approval earlier Tuesday to the bill, which had already passed the Senate. The measure, which passed the House on a largely party-line 247-to-161 vote, is designed to save the jobs of approximately 160,000 teachers across the country.” [CNN,?08/10/10]PRESIDENT OBAMA PROPOSED TO RECRUIT AND PREPARE 100,000 MATH AND SCIENCE TEACHERS OVER THE NEXT DECADEPresident Obama Has Set A Goal Of Preparing More Than 100,000 New Math And Science Teachers Over The Next 10 Years. “Obama has set a goal of preparing more than 100,000 math and science teachers and training a million additional math, technology, engineering and science graduates over the next decade.” [Seattle Times, 02/07/12]ROMNEY AND RYAN OPPOSE THE PRESIDENT’S JOBS PLAN AND ROMNEY WANTS TO CUT BACK ON TEACHERS, POLICE AND FIREFIGHTERS SAYING IT “IS NOT AN EFFECTIVE WAY TO GET THE ECONOMY GOING”Romney: President Obama “Says We Need More Firemen, More Policemen, More Teachers” But “It’s Time For Us To Cut Back On Government And Help The American People.”?ROMNEY: “[President Obama] wants to hire more government workers. He says we need more firemen, more policemen, more teachers. Did he not get the message in Wisconsin? The American people did. It’s time for us to cut back on government and help the American people." [Romney Campaign Rally, Council Bluffs, IA, 6/8/12]Romney: “I Was Not Pleased With What I Read About A Plan To Save 240,000 Teachers.” [Romney Fundraiser, Denver Colorado, 9/9/11 (Video)]Romney: President Obama “Wants To Hire More School Teachers” But “Hiring School Teachers Is Not Going To Raise The Growth Of The U.S. Economy Over The Next Four Years.” ROMNEY: “He wants to hire more school teachers. We all like school teachers. It’s a wonderful thing. Typically, school teachers are hired by states and localities, not by the federal government. But hiring school teachers is not going to raise the growth of the U.S. economy over the next four years.” [Des Moines Register Editorial Board Interview, 10/9/12]Ryan Criticized American Jobs Act. “The stakes are therefore high for the?American Jobs Act?and the subsequent debt ‘super-committee’ negotiations. Already, high-profile Republicans such as?Paul Ryan,?a congressman from Wisconsin, have criticised the proposals as being part of Obama's election campaign and not a workable bill.” [Fund Strategy, 9/26/11]THE ROMNEY-RYAN BUDGET COULD ELIMINATE FUNDING FOR 65,000 EDUCATORSThe Romney-Ryan Budget Could Eliminate Funding for 65,000 Educators And Could Result in 200,000 Low-Income Children Losing Access To Early Childhood Education Programs.? "The President's plan stands in stark contrast to the plans outlined by Congressional Republicans. Most notably, the House budget passed by Republicans in Congress this spring would cut the portion of the budget that includes basic funding for education - such as Title I education grants for schools serving low-income students and Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) funding serving special needs children - by almost 20 percent in 2014. Distributed evenly across budget areas, the House Republican budget cuts to Title I would eliminate funding for 38,000 teachers and aides, and cuts to IDEA grants could eliminate support for a further 27,000 special education teachers, aides, and other staff serving children with disabilities. Funding for the preschool programs Early Head Start and Head Start would also be cut. The Congressional Republican plan could result in 200,000 low-income children losing access to these early education programs."? [White House, accessed 9/13/12]ATTACKRomney Would Cut K-12 EducationTHE ROMNEY-RYAN BUDGET COULD CUT MORE THAN $115 BILLION FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION OVER THE NEXT DECADE…If Cuts Were Applied Across The Board, The Ryan Budget Would Slash Education, “The Department Of Education Would Be Cut By More Than $115 Billion Over A Decade.” “Yesterday, House Republicans released their budget resolution for FY 2013… On top of the roughly $1 trillion in cuts in the Budget Control Act, it would be difficult to overstate the radicalism of the domestic cuts proposed by the House budget resolution. In 2013, it would cut annual non-defense funding by 5 percent. By 2014, the resolution would cut this funding by 19 percent in purely nominal terms… The Department of Education would be cut by more than $115 billion over a decade.” [Jeff Zients, Acting Director of the Office of Management and Budget, , 3/21/12]If Cuts Were Applied Across The Board, The Ryan Budget Would Cut Elementary And Secondary Education Funding By $4.8 Billion. According to the White House, cuts to elementary and secondary education, special education funding would total $4,847,000,000 under the Ryan Budget. [White House, 4/6/12]…INCLUDING CUTS THAT COULD KICK 200,000 KIDS OFF OF HEAD STARTIf Cuts Were Applied Across The Board, The Ryan Budget Would Mean “Roughly Two Million Slots In Head Start Would Be Eliminated Over The Next Decade — Cutting 200,000 Children From The Program In 2014 Alone.” “Yesterday, House Republicans released their budget resolution for FY 2013… On top of the roughly $1 trillion in cuts in the Budget Control Act, it would be difficult to overstate the radicalism of the domestic cuts proposed by the House budget resolution. In 2013, it would cut annual non-defense funding by 5 percent. By 2014, the resolution would cut this funding by 19 percent in purely nominal terms… Roughly two million slots in Head Start would be eliminated over the next decade — cutting 200,000 children from the program in 2014 alone.” [Jeff Zients, Acting Director of the Office of Management and Budget, , 3/21/12]Romney Wants To Cut Teachers And Opposes Reducing Class SizeROMNEY WANTS TO CUT BACK ON TEACHERS SAYING THE PRESIDENT’S PLAN TO KEEP THEM “IS NOT AN EFFECTIVE WAY TO GET THE ECONOMY GOING”Romney: President Obama “Says We Need More Firemen, More Policemen, More Teachers” But “It’s Time For Us To Cut Back On Government And Help The American People.”?ROMNEY: “[President Obama] wants to hire more government workers. He says we need more firemen, more policemen, more teachers. Did he not get the message in Wisconsin? The American people did. It’s time for us to cut back on government and help the American people." [Romney Campaign Rally, Council Bluffs, IA, 6/8/12]Romney: “I Was Not Pleased With What I Read About A Plan To Save 240,000 Teachers.” [Romney Fundraiser, Denver Colorado, 9/9/11 (Video)]Romney Said “Guaranteeing The Government Will Keep Its Fire, Police And Teachers Intact … Is Not An Effective Way To Get The Economy Going.” From the Quad-City Times editorial board’s story on Romney’s meeting with them: “He condemns the Obama ‘idea of simply sending out checks to people or guaranteeing the government will keep its fire, police and teachers intact. That is not an effective way to get the economy going.’” [Editorial, Quad-City Times, 12/29/11]THE ROMNEY-RYAN BUDGET COULD ELIMINATE FUNDING FOR 65,000 EDUCATORSThe Romney-Ryan Budget Could Eliminate Funding for 65,000 Educators And Could Result in 200,000 Low-Income Children Losing Access To Early Childhood Education Programs.? "The President's plan stands in stark contrast to the plans outlined by Congressional Republicans. Most notably, the House budget passed by Republicans in Congress this spring would cut the portion of the budget that includes basic funding for education - such as Title I education grants for schools serving low-income students and Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) funding serving special needs children - by almost 20 percent in 2014. Distributed evenly across budget areas, the House Republican budget cuts to Title I would eliminate funding for 38,000 teachers and aides, and cuts to IDEA grants could eliminate support for a further 27,000 special education teachers, aides, and other staff serving children with disabilities. Funding for the preschool programs Early Head Start and Head Start would also be cut. The Congressional Republican plan could result in 200,000 low-income children losing access to these early education programs."? [White House, accessed 9/13/12]ROMNEY HAS ACTIVELY OPPOSED REDUCING CLASS SIZES FOR PUBLIC SCHOOLS, CLAIMING IT IS HARMFUL…Romney: “The Effort To Reduce Classroom Size May Actually Hurt Education More Than It Helps.” Romney wrote, “In The United States, then, the effort to reduce classroom size may actually hurt education more than it helps.” [Romney, No Apology, Pg. 216]Romney: Smaller Class Sizes Are A “Nonreform Reform” Supported By Teachers Unions To Get “More Teachers”, “More Union Dues”, And “More Power.” Romney wrote in his book No Apology, “Given the very persuasive data, why do politicians continue to promote and fund the massive investment required to reduce class size? To a certain degree, they are playing to the pervasive public perception that smaller classes mean better education. Politicians may also wish to curry favor with teachers’ unions. Smaller classes mean more teachers, more union dues, and more power, so teachers’ unions are almost always supportive of the idea, claiming that small classes are an education reform they can support. Embracing such a “nonreform reform” also spares many the hard choices involved in making real productive change in our classrooms.” [Romney, No Apology, Pg. 208]Romney: “All The Talk About We Need Smaller Classroom Size, Look That’s Promoted By Teachers Unions To Hire More Teachers.” [Fox News/Google GOP Debate – Orlando, Florida, 9/22/11]…AND HAS SAID SMALLER CLASS SIZES ARE NOT RELEVANT TO STUDENT ACHIEVEMENTRomney Cited A McKinsey Study Showing “Classroom Size Was Irrelevant To The Quality Of Education.” Romney: “There have been great institutions like the McKinsey Institute. You may have heard of McKinsey, is a great consulting firm. They have an institute that goes around the world, does studies. They looked at education in some of the most effective places in the world; Finland, South Korea, Singapore, Chicago, actually Boston, other places. And what did they find? They found that classroom size was irrelevant to the quality of education, which was not apparent, not what people anticipated. But classroom size wasn't related to the quality of education.” [Romney, Univ. Of Chicago Q&A, 3/19/12]K-12: Romney’s PlanROMNEY’S PLAN: VOUCHERIZE AMERICA’S PUBLIC EDUCATION SYSTEM…Headline: “Mitt Romney's Voucher-Like Education Overhaul” [Associated Press, 5/23/12]Romney Proposed A “Voucher-Style System” For Education. “Shifting from the economy to education, Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney was proposing a voucher-style system that could significantly alter the public school system and revive the debate over school choice.” [Associated Press, 5/23/12]Romney “Said He Would Create A National School Privatization Program.” “Speaking to a luncheon of The Latino Coalition at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce in Washington, he said he would create a national school privatization program for low-income and special needs students. ‘I will give the parents of every low-income and special needs student the chance to choose where their child goes to school,’ Romney said. ‘For the first time in history, federal education funds will be linked to a student, so that parents can send their child to any public or charter school of their choice.’” [Politico, 5/23/12]Romney’s Domestic Policy Director Oren Cass Acknowledged That Under Romney’s Plan Schools Would Not Be Able To Accommodate Every Student Who Wants To Attend Them. “On a conference call with reporters before his speech, Romney's Domestic Policy Director Oren Cass acknowledged that schools would not always be able to take every child who wants to attend them under the plan. High-performing charter schools around the country often hold lotteries to admit only a fraction of students who apply, and there's reason to believe that the best school in any given area will have to turn away some low-income students who want to attend with their voucher. But Cass said Romney would also encourage more quality charter schools to start up to offer more choices.” [ABC News, 5/23/12]“High-Performing Charter Schools Around The Country Often Hold Lotteries To Admit Only A Fraction Of Students Who Apply, And There's Reason To Believe That The Best School In Any Given Area Will Have To Turn Away Some Low-Income Students Who Want To Attend With Their Voucher.”? [ABC News, 5/23/12]…ALLOWING TAXPAYER DOLLARS TO FLOW TO PRIVATE INSTITUTIONSRomney: “For The First Time In History, Federal Education Funds Will Be Linked To A Student, So That Parents Can Send Their Child To Any Public Or Charter School, Or To A Private School.” ? [Romney Prepared Remarks, Washington, DC, 5/23/12]A Romney Campaign Document Indicated That His Education Plan Would Allow Public Funds To Be Spent At Private Schools And Online Courses. “Presumptive GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney has been mulling some big changes to federal K-12 policy if elected, including allowing federal funding to follow students—even if they want to attend private schools—according to a campaign document obtained by Politics K-12. Disadvantaged families and parents of students in special education could choose to spend federal funds at any district or charter public school, tutoring provider, or online course, according to the document circulated over the weekend. It outlines a series of ideas that have been considered by Romney and his advisers, which could be announced as early as this week. Under the proposal, students could also federal money at a private school, as long as that was consistent with state guidelines.” [Education Week, 5/22/12]…WHILE OFFERING NO PLAN TO FIX FAILING PUBLIC SCHOOLSRomney’s Education Plan Says That Students Should Be Allowed To Escape Failing Public Schools By Using Federal Dollars To Pay For Private Schools, Online Schools And Other Alternative Settings. “Calling it a ‘national education emergency,’ Mitt Romney said Wednesday that poor and disabled children should be allowed to escape failing public schools by using federal dollars to pay for private schools, online schools and other alternative settings.” [Washington Post, 5/23/12]Former Education Secretary To George W. Bush Margaret Spellings Said She Stopped Advising Romney After He “Rejected Strong Federal Accountability Measures” Because Vouchers And Choice As Drivers Of Accountability Are “Untried And Untested.” “One notable skeptic is Margaret Spellings, a former education secretary under Mr. Bush, who this year was an informal adviser to Mr. Romney. She said she withdrew once the candidate rejected strong federal accountability measures. ‘I have long supported and defended and believe in a muscular federal role on school accountability,’ Ms. Spellings said. ‘Vouchers and choice as the drivers of accountability — obviously that’s untried and untested.’” [New York Times, 6/11/12]Romney Praised Race To The TopROMNEY REPEATEDLY TOUTED SECRETARY DUNCAN AND RACE TO THE TOPRomney Touted President Obama’s Education Secretary Arne Duncan For Race To The Top Saying He Was “Encouraged” By A Number Of Its Aspects. Romney said of Secretary of Education, Arne Duncan: “But what I like about him is he said, look, I want to have this Race to the Top program which will give grants to states to encourage innovation and specifically that say we're going to compensate teachers, based upon their performance, which I think is the right thing. We're going to insist on more school choice. I think that's the right thing. So I like the fact that he encouraged those things.” [NBC’s Education Nation” Summit, 9/25/12]Romney Praised President Obama’s Education Secretary Arne Duncan For Race To The Top. “At the event, Romney also praised Obama’s education secretary for the Race to the Top program that rewards state education systems for reaching specific goals. ‘I think Secretary Duncan has done some good things,’ he said. ‘I hope that’s not heresy in this room.’” [Politico, 9/21/11]Romney Gave The Example Of Race To The Top As A Program That “Makes Sense” And Has Done Good Things. [Romney Town Hall, Miami FL, 9/21/11 (Video Available)]Associated Press Fact Check: “Romney Does Indeed Support Some Of The Specific Policy Changes Encouraged By The Race To The Top Program.” [Fact Check, Associated Press, 9/23/11]Romney Praised Obama For Race To The Top And For Funding No Child Left Behind. “Romney praised President Barack Obama for funding No Child Left Behind to test kids and for Race to the Top, which he said was a ‘hopeful departure from the influence of the teachers’ unions.’” [New Haven Register, 9/10/10]Higher Education: Romney Would Cut Financial Aid And Told Students To “Shop Around”ROMNEY’S ADVICE TO COLLEGE STUDENTS STRUGGLING TO AFFORD TUITION WAS TO “SHOP AROUND” FOR A GOOD DEAL OR BORROW MONEY FROM THEIR PARENTSRomney In Youngstown Today: “The Best Thing I Can Do For You Is To Tell You To Shop Around, And To Compare Tuition In Different Places.” [Romney Youngstown Town Hall, 3/5/12]Romney Encouraged Young People To “Borrow Money If You Have To From Your Parents” To Go To College Or Start A Business. Romney before he began talking about how his friend, Jimmy John, borrowed money from his parents to start his business: “This kind of divisiveness, this attack of success, is very different than what we’ve seen in our country’s history. We’ve always encouraged young people: Take a shot, go for it, take a risk, get the education, borrow money if you have to from your parents, start a business.” [Romney Guest Lecture, Otterbein University, 4/27/12]Romney On College Tuition: “You’ll Either Borrow A Lot, Or You’ll Have Parents Help You, Or Do It Yourself.” Romney: “There are a couple of young folks here, relatively young folks, how old are you?” Audience member: “Eighteen.” Romney: “Eighteen. A voter. Are you at school right now?” Audience member: “I am.” Romney: What do you do in school? Where are you in school?” Audience member: “Millbury College.” Romney: “Millbury College, excellent. When you get out of college you want a job and you will invest a lot in paying for tuition and room and board.? You’ll either borrow a lot, or you’ll have parents help you, or do it yourself. I see parents smiling next to you. And you’ll want to see a job that is commensurate with what you invested.? I want that to be the case.”? [Romney Town Hall, Berlin NH, 8/16/11]THE ROMNEY-RYAN PLAN COULD SLASH PELL GRANTS BY $1,000 FOR NEARLY 10 MILLION STUDENTSIf Cuts Were Applied Across The Board, The Ryan Budget Would Slash Education, Meaning “9.6 Million Students Would See Their Pell Grants Fall By More Than $1000 In 2014, And, Over The Next Decade, Over One Million Students Would Lose Support Altogether.” “Yesterday, House Republicans released their budget resolution for FY 2013… On top of the roughly $1 trillion in cuts in the Budget Control Act, it would be difficult to overstate the radicalism of the domestic cuts proposed by the House budget resolution. In 2013, it would cut annual non-defense funding by 5 percent. By 2014, the resolution would cut this funding by 19 percent in purely nominal terms… 9.6 million students would see their Pell Grants fall by more than $1000 in 2014, and, over the next decade, over one million students would lose support altogether.” [Jeff Zients, Acting Director of the Office of Management and Budget, , 3/21/12]New York Times’ Paul Krugman: Romney Has Been “A Strong Supporter” Of The House Republican Budget “Which Would Drastically Cut Federal Student Aid, Causing Roughly A Million Students To Lose Their Pell Grants.” “Mr. Romney isn’t proposing anything that would fix that; he is, however, a strong supporter of the Ryan budget plan, which would drastically cut federal student aid, causing roughly a million students to lose their Pell grants.” [Paul Krugman, NYT, 4/30/12]Steve Benen: “A Romney Administration Will Cut Pell Grants, Make It Harder To Get Student Loans, And Encourage Students Who Struggle With Tuition Costs To "Shop Around" Until They Can Find A College They Can Afford.”? “Yesterday, Mitt Romney unveiled a new education agenda, which vows to bring the middleman back. … Sure, Obama's reforms save taxpayer money and help more young people go to college, but by streamlining the process, Democrats have cut into bank profits -- and that can't stand.? Taken together, it's quite a pitch Romney has to make to young adults and their families: a Romney administration will cut Pell Grants, make it harder to get student loans, and encourage students who struggle with tuition costs to "shop around" until they can find a college they can afford.”? [Steve Benen, MSNBC, 5/24/12]ROMNEY WOULD ELIMINATE THE AMERICAN OPPORTUNITY TAX CREDITRomney’s Plan Would Allow Tax Provision In The 2009 Recovery Act To Expire, Including The “American Opportunity Tax Credit For Higher Education.” “Tax provisions in the 2009 stimulus act and subsequently extended through 2012 would expire. These include the American Opportunity tax credit for higher education, the expanded refundability of the child credit, and the expansion of the earned income tax credit (EITC).” [Tax Policy Center, The Romney Plan (updated), 3/1/12]Reuters Columnist David Cay Johnston: Romney Raises Taxes On Poor Families With Children Going To College By Eliminating The American Opportunity Tax Credit For College Education. From David Cay Johnston’s column on Romney’s tax plan: “Romney would make the Bush tax cuts permanent. But that’s only a first step. He would also raise taxes on poor families with children at home and those going to college. Romney does this by reducing benefits from the child tax credit and the earned income tax credit and by ending the American Opportunity tax credit for college education. Without these tax breaks, the poorest fifth of taxpayers would pay $157 more in taxes in 2015 than under current policy, the Tax Policy Center says in its analysis of Romney’s plan. The second poorest group would pay $82 more, according to the center, whose past work has been praised by Republicans and Democrats alike.” [David Cay Johnston, Reuters, 2/7/12]Romney Would Repeal Student Loan ReformROMNEY WOULD ADD THE MIDDLEMAN BACK TO STUDENT LOANSRomney Opposed President Obama’s Student Loan Reform. “When the Obama Administration and the Democratic Congress nationalized the student loan market, they drove away private lenders and moved a trillion-dollar obligation to the federal balance sheet. A Romney Administration will embrace a private-sector role in providing information, financing, and education itself, working with effective businesses to support the goals of students and their families.” [Romney Education White Paper, page 31, 5/23/12]Romney’s Proposal To Repeal President Obama’s Overhaul To The Federal Student Loan Program Would Be “A Return To Bank-Based Student Lending.” “The presumed Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney pledged Wednesday that, if elected, he would reshape or do away with two major Obama administration higher education policy initiatives: the overhaul of the federal student loan program and tighter regulations on for-profit colleges…He also calls for a return to bank-based student lending, which was phased out beginning in 2010 as part of the health care overhaul.” [Inside Higher Ed, 5/24/12]Steve Benen: Romney’s Education Agenda “Vows To Bring The Middleman Back” To The Student-Loan System. “One of the overlooked accomplishments of President Obama's term is the reform of the student-loan system -- an effort that was decades in the making, but had been blocked by Republicans and bank lobbyists until 2010. Under the old system, the student-loan industry received billions in taxpayer subsidies to provide a service the government could perform for less. As Rachel explained on the show a month ago, in 2010, Democrats removed the middleman, streamlined the process, saved taxpayers a ton of money, and helped more young people get college degrees. Yesterday, Mitt Romney unveiled a new education agenda, which vows to bring the middleman back.” [Steve Benen, MSNBC, 5/24/12]RYAN SAID THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT “CONFISCATED” THE STUDENT LOAN INDUSTRY DURING STUDENT LOAN REFORMRyan Said That Obama’s Student Loan Reforms Had The Federal Government “Basically Confiscate The Private Student Loan Industry.” At a town hall meeting, Ryan said about Obama’s student loan reforms: “The second concern I have is, in the health care bill — people don’t know this — for budgetary gimmickry reasons, the administration and Congress at the time, took over the student loan industry. So they had the federal government, the Department of Education, basically confiscate the private student loan industry.” [Think Progress, 10/20/11]2010: Ryan Opposed Reforming Student Loan Overhaul That “Would Save Taxpayers About $61 Billion Over 10 Years” And Redirect “$40 Billion Of The Savings … To Higher Education.” Ryan against “forc[ing] commercial banks out of the federal student loan market, cutting off billions of dollars in profits in a sweeping restructuring of financial-aid programs and redirecting most of the money to new education initiatives. … The Congressional Budget Office said the direct-lending approach would save taxpayers about $61 billion over 10 years. Roughly $40 billion of the savings will be redirected to higher education. Education programs will get an additional $10 billion from the health care package.” The bill passed 220-211. [HR 4872, Vote #167, 3/21/10; New York Times, 3/25/10]Ryan: Loan Overhaul “Is Yet One More Example Of The Federal Government Taking Over A Function From The Private Sector, And The Taxpayers Are Now On The Hook As A Result Of It.” “QUESTION: With Fox. The president has recently announced a series of executive actions on home mortgages and student loan debt. Do you view those as a way to bypass Congress? And do you feel that that’s a legitimate governing technique or a campaign tactic? … RYAN: As far as the student loans, I was very disappointed to see, in the health care bill, a basic confiscation of the private student loan industry. And so now this is all on the government’s books. Taxpayers are liable for all these loans if they go bad. And it takes away choice and competition in the student loan market for students. So I think it is yet one more example of the federal government taking over a function from the private sector, and the taxpayers are now on the hook as a result of it.” [Ryan speech at Heritage Foundation, 10/26/11]New York Times: Student Loan Reform Eliminated $68 Billion Paid To Banks Acting As Intermediaries To Invest In Pell Grants. “The new law will eliminate fees paid to private banks to act as intermediaries in providing loans to college students and use much of the nearly $68 billion in savings over 11 years to expand Pell grants and make it easier for students to repay outstanding loans after graduating. The law also invests $2 billion in community colleges over the next four years to provide education and career training programs to workers eligible for trade adjustment aid after dislocation in their industries.” [New York Times, 3/30/10]Romney Supports For-Profit CollegesROMNEY SUPPORTS THE FOR-PROFIT COLLEGE INDUSTRY…USA Today: “Romney Has Emerged As An Enthusiastic Backer Of For-Profit Education And Singled Out Full Sail And The University Of Phoenix For Praise.” [USA Today, 3/29/12]Romney Is “Not A Huge Fan” Of Regulations On Gainful Employment Rules, That Congressional Republicans Have Said Hurt For-Profit Colleges. “And, like most Republicans, he's not a huge fan of the Obama administration's regulations on gainful employment rules, which GOP lawmakers on the Hill have argued hurt for-profit colleges.” [Education Week, 5/22/12]…AND TOUTED IT AS A WAY TO COMBAT RISING TUITIONRomney Praised “The Advent Of For-Profit Institutions Of Higher Learning, Which I Know The President And His Supporters Don’t Like” And Said “I Actually Like The Idea Of Competition In Higher Education.” Romney was asked in an editorial board interview with the Ames Tribune, “The cost of education has just sky rocketed. Is there anything in your kit bag that is addressing that?” He responded, “I happen to think that competition is a great source of invention and improvement.?I see the advent of for-profit institutions of higher learning, which I know the president and his supporters don’t like. I actually like the idea of competition in higher education.” [Ames Tribune Editorial Board Interview, 12/29/11]Romney Said He Believed That Competition In Higher Education From For-Profit Colleges Would “Improve The Cost Of Education.” Romney: “My belief is that what will improve the cost of education is competition between institutions of higher learning. I happen to think that even some of these for profit universities such as the University of Phoenix and others, that they will drive competition and that students are going to say you know what it’s not worth tens of thousands of dollars to go to this college when I can go to that college for half the price and get a very good education. I think that competition will make a difference.” [Romney, Reno Gazette Journal Editorial Board, 2/2/12]Romney’s Plan To Fight The Rising Cost Of Tuition Was “Less Government Subsidy” And Encouraging Greater Competition In The Marketplace With Innovation Likely From Not-For-Profits And For-Profits. On the rising cost of tuition Romney said: “I do. There are two areas where the cost is rising substantially faster than inflation. One is higher education, and the other is health care. And both happen to be highly dominated by government and government subsidy. There’s no question in my experience that the best way to get costs down and to improve quality is to expose an industry to the rigors of competition. …Being in the business world, every business that I’ve been involved with, we’ve had to learn how to do things better and more economically, or we’d be gone in five or 10 years. The speed of change is dramatic. In higher education, what changes have occurred? They just keep on raising the tuition and then going to the state and asking for more money. Or loans are being given to kids that they know they can’t possibly repay… My own view is that looking less to subsidy and looking ahead to say how do we let greater competition exist in the marketplace is the right course for bringing down the cost of tuition. … I think you are going to find that there will be innovators in the area of higher education, maybe some not-for-profit, maybe some for-profit, which will offer a better education at a more attractive rate.”? [Michigan Live Editorial Board Interview with Mitt Romney,?2/15/12]Massachusetts: Romney Slashed K-12 Which Let To Teacher LayoffsIN ROMNEY’S FIRST YEAR, MASSACHUSETTS SCHOOLS SAW THE SECOND-HIGHEST PERCENTAGES CUTS IN THE COUNTRY…Massachusetts Budget And Policy Center: The Fiscal Year 2004 Budget Would Cut “Spending On K-12 Education” By $248.7 Million “Or 6.6 Percent.” “Spending on K-12 education (excluding ongoing School Building Assistance payments, which are a form of debt service that the state is obligated to pay) is cut by $248.7 million, or 6.6 percent. Cuts affect both of the two main categories of K-12 spending: Chapter 70 local education aid that goes directly to cities and towns and other funding for an array of targeted education programs (most of which is delivered in the form of grants to school districts).” [Massachusetts Budget And Policy Center, FY2004 Conference Budget, 6/26/03] From FY03 To FY04, Massachusetts Saw The Second Largest Percentage Reduction In Nominal School Aid In The Nation: A Reduction Of 5.7% Compared To The National Average, An Increase Of 1.8% [University Of Wisconsin, The Impact Of State Government Fiscal Crises On Local Governments And Schools, Accessed 4/13/12]The Fiscal Year 2004 Budget “Contains The First K-12 Education Funding Cuts In A Decade.” “The Legislature yesterday restored the last of some $150 million in spending that Governor Mitt Romney had vetoed two weeks ago, putting the finishing touches on a state budget that cuts education, housing, and environmental programs…The budget, which governs the fiscal year that started on July 1, contains the first K-12 education funding cuts in a decade, a whopping 14.6 percent escalation in Medicaid funding, and mild reductions in programs across state government, from courts to the environment to social services.” [Boston Globe, 7/18/03]…WHICH LED TO TEACHER LAYOFFSRomney’s Budget Cuts Forced Teacher Layoffs. “Governor Mitt Romney and the Legislature, faced with a multibillion dollar shortfall, made it more expensive to get a marriage license or a divorce, file a court case, buy a house, renew a driver's license, or tap into a host of other state services. … Even with the fee increases, Massachusetts lawmakers have had to cut spending on K-12 education, forcing teacher layoffs, push 10,000 legal immigrants off Medicaid, and force rape crisis centers to close, along with a host of other state services that have been scaled back.” [Boston Globe, 7/24/03] 2003: Romney’s Cuts To Local Aid Resulted In Layoffs Of 14,500 Teachers, Police Officers, Librarians, And Others. “The last time the state endured local aid cuts in the middle of a fiscal year was in 2003, when Romney cut $114 million. He followed that up with more cuts in the next budget. Together, the reductions in local aid resulted in about 14,500 teachers, police officers, librarians, and others losing their jobs.” [Boston Globe, 1/24/09]Northern Massachusetts School Officials “Say A Lack Of Sufficient State Funding Has Forced Them To Issue Pink Slips To Teachers” Many Of Whom Were New Teachers. “As communities struggle with escalating expenses and diminishing state funding, school officials throughout the North region fear deep program cuts and teacher layoffs will have a demoralizing effect on young educators, causing many to leave the profession. From Revere to Newburyport, superintendents and school committee members say a lack of sufficient state funding has forced them to issue pink slips to teachers, many of them recent college graduates with little classroom experience.” [Boston Globe, 9/18/03]Boston Globe Headline: “Budget Cuts Put Future Teachers At Risk Educators Leaving To Start New Careers.” [Boston Globe, 9/18/03]ROMNEY CUT MILLIONS FROM EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATIONNovember 2006: Romney Cut $22 Million In Education Programs, Including $9 Million For K-12 Funding. “Some $13 million for early education funding for Head Start, Reach Out and Read, a pre-kindergarten public school program, was cut. And close to $9 million in K-12 funding for MCAS remediation, full-day kindergarten, extended learning time and special education was eliminated.” [Telegram & Gazette, 11/22/06]FY07: Romney Cut $17.3 From Early Education And Care With 9C Reductions. “The Governor cut $25.7 million in funding from early education and care with the 9C reductions, and then restored $8.4 million.” [Massachusetts Budget And Policy Center, 12/13/06]Romney Used The 9C Cuts To Cut $318,297 For “Kindergarten Expansion Grants.” The 9C cut came with the comment “Reduces Spending That Is Not Affordable Given the current revenue estimate. [Massachusetts Governor’s 9C Reduction List, 11/10/06]Romney Used The 9C Cuts To Cut $198,506 For “Early Education & Care Administration.” The 9C cut came with the comment “reduces payroll and administrative expenses.”Romney Used The 9C Cuts To Cut $554,744 For “Pre-School Programs.” The 9C cut came with the comment “Reduces Spending That Is Not Affordable Given the current revenue estimate. [Massachusetts Governor’s 9C Reduction List, 11/10/06]Romney Used The 9C Cuts To Cut $54,015 For “Universal Pre-K Kindergarten.” The 9C cut came with the comment “Reduces Spending That Is Not Affordable Given the current revenue estimate. [Massachusetts Governor’s 9C Reduction List, 11/10/06]Romney Used The 9C Cuts To Cut $1,000,000 For Grants To Head Start Programs. The 9C cut came with the comment “Reduces Spending That Is Not Affordable Given the current revenue estimate. [Massachusetts Governor’s 9C Reduction List, 11/10/06]Massachusetts: Romney Slashed Higher EducationDURING ROMNEY’S TENURE, HE CUT HIGHER EDUCATION FUNDING BY “ABOUT $140 MILLION” FORCING UNIVERSITY FEES TO SOAR BY 63 PERCENTRomney Cut Higher Education By “About 140 Million, Or About 14 Percent” His First Year In Office, And During His Tenure “Fees Soared 63 Percent” As A Result Of “Deep Budget Cuts.” “Another shift hit students at state colleges and universities, where fees soared 63 percent during Romney’s tenure, from an average of $2,959 in 2003 to $4,836 in 2007, according to the state Board of Higher Education. The fee hikes were enacted by each campus to offset deep budget cuts of about $140 million, or about 14 percent, during the fiscal crisis.” [Boston Globe, 6/29/07]Massachusetts: Pushback On Number 1 SchoolsCREDIT FOR MASSACHUSETTS SCHOOLS BEING FIRST IN THE NATION BELONGS TO ROMNEY’S PREDECESSORS, NOT ROMNEYNew York Times: Massachusetts Educators “Largely Credit” Romney’s Predecessor, Governor Weld, Not Romney, For “An Overarching Reform Of State Schools 10 Years Earlier.” “On education, Mr. Romney was correct in stating that Massachusetts students were ranked first in the nation during his tenure. Students in grades four and eight took top honors in reading and mathematics on the 2003 National Assessment of Educational Progress.? However, educators largely credit an overarching reform of state schools 10 years earlier under Governor Weld. The reforms doubled state spending on schools and brought standards and accountability to administrators and students.? ‘Governor Romney does not get to take the credit for achieving that No. 1 ranking,’ said Mike Gilbert, field director for the nonprofit Massachusetts Association of School Committees, ‘but it did happen while he was in office.’” [New York Times, 10/5/12]Field Director For Massachusetts Association Of School Committees Mike Gilbert: “Governor Romney Does Not Get To Take The Credit For Achieving That No. 1 Ranking.” “‘Governor Romney does not get to take the credit for achieving that No. 1 ranking,’ said Mike Gilbert, field director for the nonprofit Massachusetts Association of School Committees, ‘but it did happen while he was in office.’” [New York Times, 10/5/12]ROMNEY INHERITED ONE OF THE BEST SCHOOL SYSTEMS IN THE NATION, A FACT THAT HE ADMITS?2012 Romney: We “Drove Our Schools To Be Number One In The Nation – Kept Them There Rather.” “And I have proven in a state that is very Democrat that I`m able to work with people. Nineteen tax cuts, protected charter schools, drove our schools to be number one in the nation -- kept them there rather.” [NBC New Hampshire Debate/Meet the Press, Mitt Romney, 1/8/12] ?Education Policy Analyst Diane Ravitch: Romney Takes Credit For Massachusetts’ High Test Scores, “But Romney Was Not Responsible For The State’s Academic Success, Which Owes To Reforms That Are Entirely Different From The Ones He Is Now Proposing For The Country.” “Paradoxically, Romney’s campaign takes credit for the fact that Massachusetts leads the nation in reading and mathematics on the federal tests known as the National Assessment of Educational Progress. But Romney was not responsible for the state’s academic success, which owes to reforms that are entirely different from the ones he is now proposing for the country.” [Diane Ravitch, New York Review of Books, 6/5/12]?2001: The Massachusetts State Commissioner Of Education Pointed To Raising Test Scores, 4th Graders Tied For Best In The Nation, Were “Directly Linked To The Massachusetts Education Reform Act Of 1993.” “Massachusetts' strong showing on the math portion of the 2000 National Assessment of Educational Progress, often referred to as the nation's report card,'' is raising questions about whether the state's education reforms are moving in the right direction. The NAEP results, released two weeks ago, showed that fourth-graders in Massachusetts tied their peers in Minnesota for the highest scores in the country. David P. Driscoll, state commissioner of education, believes the results are directly linked to the Massachusetts Education Reform Act of 1993.” [Telegram & Gazette, 8/13/01]?1996: Massachusetts Ranked 4th In 8th Grade Reading, 11th In 8th Grade Math, 5th In 4th Grade Reading And 7th In 4th Grade Math. [American Legislation Exchange Council, A State-By-State Analysis, 2007]?2003: Massachusetts Ranked 1st In 8th Grade Reading, 2nd In 8th Grade Math, 2nd In 4th Grade Reading And 2nd In 4th Grade Math. [American Legislation Exchange Council, A State-By-State Analysis, 2007]?From Fiscal Year 1993 To Fiscal Year 2003, Massachusetts’ Spending On Primary And Secondary Education Per State Personal Income Increased The Largest Amount In The Nation. “In FY 1993, state and local spending on primary and secondary education in? Massachusetts totaled 3.35 percent of state personal income; by FY 2003, that figure was? 4.16 percent of state personal income.? This change amounts to the largest increase of its? kind among the fifty states; as a result, Massachusetts’ national ranking improved from? 49th? to 34th? by this measure.” [Massachusetts Budget And Policy Center, Public School Funding In Massachusetts, 11/2/05]ENERGYPRO-POTUSToplines – ProductionPRESIDENT OBAMA’S ALL-OF-THE-ABOVE APPROACH TO ENERGY HAS HELPED BOOST DOMESTIC OIL PRODUCTION AND REDUCE OUR DEPENDENCE ON FOREIGN OILPresident Obama Emphasized The Need For An “All-Out, All-Of-The-Above Strategy That Develops Every Available Source Of American Energy.” “But with only 2 percent of the world’s oil reserves, oil isn’t enough.? This country needs an all-out, all-of-the-above strategy that develops every available source of American energy – a strategy that’s cleaner, cheaper, and full of new jobs.“ [Remarks by the President in State of the Union Address, 1/24/12]In The First Quarter Of 2012, Domestic Crude Oil Production Is At Its Highest Level In 14 Years. “Strong growth in U.S. crude oil production since the fourth quarter of 2011 is due mainly to higher output from North Dakota, Texas, and federal leases in the Gulf of Mexico, with total U.S. production during the first quarter of 2012 topping 6 million barrels per day (bbl/d) for the first time in 14 years.” [Energy Information Administration, 6/8/12]Domestic Production Of Natural Gas Is At An All-Time High. According to Energy Information Administration data, the United States’ marketed production of natural gas was 24,169,613 million cubic in 2011, breaking the previous record of 22,647,549 million cubic feet in 1973. [Energy Information Administration, 8/31/12]Net Electricity Generation From Wind Has More Than Doubled Between 2008 And 2011. In 2008, wind generated 55,363 megawatthours of electricity in the United States. In 2011 the United States produced 119,747 megawatthours of electricity from wind. [Energy Information Administration, Electric Power Monthly, September 2012]Net Electricity Generation From Solar Has More Than Doubled Between 2008 And November 2011. In 2008, the United States produced 864 megawatthours of electricity from solar sources. In 2011 the United States produced 1,814 megawatthours of electricity from solar. [Energy Information Administration, Electric Power Monthly, September 2012]The Obama Administration Is Implementing A More Than $5 Billion Investment Strategy In Clean Coal Research And Development Which Has Attracted More Than $10 Billion In Private Investment. “Today’s awards are part of a more than $5 billion investment strategy by the Obama Administration in clean coal technologies and R&D. This strategy, which has attracted over $10 billion in additional private capital investment, is designed to accelerate commercial deployment of clean coal technologies – particularly carbon capture and storage (CCS) – and to position the United States as a leader in the global clean energy race.” [Department of Energy Press Release, 6/6/12]The Obama Administration Issued A Conditional Loan Guarantee For The Construction Of The First Nuclear Power Plant In The United States In Decades, Which Will Provide Enough Energy For 1.4 Million People. From a Department of Energy press release: “The Energy Department and the Obama Administration are committed to restarting America’s nuclear industry to create new jobs and provide clean power to America’s communities. As part of these efforts, the Energy Department has awarded conditional loan guarantees to support the construction of the first U.S. nuclear reactors in more than three decades. The project, located at the Vogtle nuclear power plant in Burke, Georgia, will bring two new Westinghouse AP1000 reactors online -- supporting 3,500 construction jobs and 800 permanent jobs along with providing clean electricity to nearly 1.4 million people.” [Department of Energy, 12/20/11]Under President Obama, Dependence On Foreign Oil Is At Its Lowest Level In 20 YearsUNDER PRESIDENT OBAMA, THE UNITED STATES’ DEPENDENCE ON FOREIGN OIL WAS AT ITS LOWEST LEVEL IN 20 YEARS, AND PRESIDENT OBAMA HAS SET A GOAL OF CUTTING OIL IMPORTS IN HALF BY 2020In The First Eight Months Of 2012, The United States’ Dependence On Foreign Oil Was At Its Lowest Level In 20 Years. According to the Energy Information Administration, in the first eight months of 2012, the percent of net imports of petroleum as a share of petroleum products supplied averaged 41.9%. According to Energy Information Administration data, this is the lowest level since 1992 when the percent of net petroleum imports as a share of petroleum product supplied was 40.7%. [Calculated from Energy Information Administration data, Monthly Energy Review, September 2012]The Energy Information Administration Projects That Net Oil And Petroleum Imports As A Share Of Consumption Will Fall From 45 Percent In 2011 To 41 Percent In 2012 And 39 Percent In 2013. According to the Energy Information Administration’s Short Term Energy Outlook: “The share of total U.S. consumption met by total liquid fuel net imports of both crude oil and products has been falling since peaking at over 60 percent in 2005. In 2011, it averaged 45 percent, down from 49 percent in 2010.??EIA expects that the total net import share of consumption will continue to decline to 41 percent in 2012 and to 39 percent in 2013 because of the substantial increases in domestic crude oil production. If the 2013 forecast holds true, it would be the first time the share of total U.S. consumption met by total liquid fuel imports is less than 40 percent since 1991.” [Energy Information Administration, Short Term Energy Outlook, September 2012]President Obama Has Set A Goal Of Cutting The United States’ Imports Of Oil In Half By 2020. From President Obama’s speech at the Democratic National Convention: “We’re offering a better path, where we -- a future where we keep investing in wind and solar and clean coal; where farmers and scientists harness new biofuels to power our cars and trucks; where construction workers build homes and factories that waste less energy; where we develop a hundred-year supply of natural gas that’s right beneath our feet. If you choose this path, we can cut our oil imports in half by 2020 and support more than 600,000 new jobs in natural gas alone.” [Remarks by the President at the Democratic National Convention, 9/7/12]President Obama’s Fuel Economy Standards Will Save Drivers Money And Reduce Greenhouse GasesPRESIDENT OBAMA’S FUEL ECONOMY STANDARDS WILL SAVE DRIVERS MORE THAN $8,000 AT THE PUMP – ROUGHLY EQUIVALENT TO LOWERING THE PRICE OF GAS BY $1The Obama Administration’s Fuel Economy Standards Will Double The Fuel Economy Of Cars And Light Trucks By 2025. “The Obama administration on Tuesday introduced new rules to double fuel economy for cars and light-duty trucks by 2025, a move that the White House says will be comparable to cutting a dollar a gallon from the price of gasoline and that auto dealers warned would raise the cost of a new car.” [McClatchy Newspapers, 8/28/12]The Obama Administration’s Fuel Efficiency Program Will Save The Average Car Buyer More Than $8,000 At The Pump. From an Environmental Protection Agency press release: “The Administration’s combined efforts represent the first meaningful update to fuel efficiency standards in decades. Together, they will save American families more than $1.7 trillion dollars in fuel costs, resulting in an average fuel savings of more than $8,000 by 2025 over the lifetime of the vehicle.” [Environmental Protection Agency Press Release, 8/28/12]The Obama Administration’s Fuel Economy Standards Will Create Savings At The Pump Roughly Equivalent To Lowering The Price Of Gasoline By $1. “The Administration’s combined efforts represent the first meaningful update to fuel efficiency standards in decades. Together, they will save American families more than $1.7 trillion dollars in fuel costs, resulting in an average fuel savings of more than $8,000 by 2025 over the lifetime of the vehicle. For families purchasing a model Year 2025 vehicle, the net savings will be comparable to lowering the price of gasoline by approximately $1 per gallon.” [Environmental Protection Agency Press Release, 8/28/12]Combined, The Fuel Economy Standards Proposed By The Obama Administration Will Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions From Cars And Light Trucks By Half. “The standards also represent historic progress to reduce carbon pollution and address climate change. Combined, the Administration’s standards will cut greenhouse gas emissions from cars and light trucks in half by 2025, reducing emissions by 6 billion metric tons over the life of the program – more than the total amount of carbon dioxide emitted by the United States in 2010.” [Environmental Protection Agency Press Release, 8/28/12]Under President Obama, The Oil And Gas Industry Has Added Tens Of Thousands Of JobsUNDER PRESIDENT OBAMA, THE OIL AND GAS INDUSTRY HAS ADDED TENS OF THOUSANDS OF JOBSThere Were 30,200 More People Employed In The Oil And Gas Extraction Sector In September 2012 Than There Were In January 2009. In January 2009, 164,800 people were employed in the oil and gas extraction industry. In September 2012, 195,000 people were employed in the oil and gas extraction industry. [Bureau of Labor Statistics, accessed 10/8/12]Employment In The Oil And Gas Extraction Industry In August 2012 Was The Highest It’s Been Since May 1988. In August 2012, there were 195,400 people working in the oil and gas extraction sector. This was the highest monthly employment since May 1988 when there were 195,100 people employed in the oil and gas extraction sector. Data is seasonally adjusted. [Bureau of Labor Statistics, accessed 10/8/12]There Were 54,600 More People Employed In Support Activities For Oil And Gas Operations In August 2012 Than There Were In January 2009. In January 2009, 218,400 people were employed in support activities for oil and gas operations. In August 2012, 273,000 people were employed in support activities for oil and gas operations. Data is not seasonally adjusted. [Bureau of Labor Statistics, accessed 10/8/12]There Were 27,400 More People Working In The Oil And Gas Pipeline Construction Sector In August 2012 Than There Were In January 2009. In January 2009, 104,700 people were employed in the oil and gas pipeline construction sector. In August 2012, 132,100 people were employed in the oil and gas pipeline sector. Data is not seasonally adjusted. [Bureau of Labor Statistics, accessed 10/8/12]In August 2012, There Were More People Working In The Oil And Gas Pipeline Construction Sector Than At Any Point Since 1990. In August 2012, there were 132,100 people working in the oil and gas pipeline construction sector. BLS data shows that monthly employment has not been that high since at least 1990. Data is not seasonally adjusted. [Bureau of Labor Statistics, accessed10/8/12]Pushback: President Obama Has Made Historic Investments In Clean Coal Technology While Keeping Miners SafeUNDER PRESIDENT OBAMA, EMPLOYMENT IN THE COAL MINING INDUSTRY REACHED ITS HIGHEST LEVEL SINCE 1996, AND HIS INVESTMENTS IN THE COAL INDUSTRY ARE HELPING TO DEVELOP THE NEXT GENERATION OF COAL-FIRED POWER PLANTS WHILE KEEPING MINERS SAFEEMPLOYMENT IN THE COAL MINING INDUSTRY REACHED A 15-YEAR HIGH IN 2011Nationwide In 2011, Employment In The Coal Mining Industry Hit Its Highest Level Since 1996. According to preliminary data from the Mine Safety and Health Administration, the average number of employees in the coal mining industry was 94,729, the highest average employment since 1996 when there were 96,324 people employed in the coal mining industry. [Mine Safety and Health Administration, Mine Injury and Worktime Quarterly Statistics Coal Data 1993-2010, accessed 4/15/12; Mine Safety and Health Administration, Mine Injury and Worktime, Quarterly, January – December 2011, Final]Employment In The Coal Mining Industry Has Increased Nearly By Four Percent Since President Obama Took Office. According to data from the Mine Safety and Health Administration, there were 94,058 people employed in the coal mining industry in the first half of 2012. In 2008, there were 90,055 people employed in the coal mining industry. [Mine Safety and Health Administration, Mine Injury and Worktime, Quarterly, January – December 2008, Final; Mine Safety and Health Administration, Mine Injury and Worktime, Quarterly, January – June 2012, Preliminary]THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION HAS MADE HISTORIC INVESTMENTS IN CLEAN COAL TECHNOLOGY AND IS SUPPORTING DOZENS OF PROJECTS ACROSS THE COUNTRYThe Obama Administration Is Implementing A More Than $5 Billion Investment Strategy In Clean Coal Research And Development Which Has Attracted More Than $10 Billion In Private Investment. “Today’s awards are part of a more than $5 billion investment strategy by the Obama Administration in clean coal technologies and R&D. This strategy, which has attracted over $10 billion in additional private capital investment, is designed to accelerate commercial deployment of clean coal technologies – particularly carbon capture and storage (CCS) – and to position the United States as a leader in the global clean energy race.” [Department of Energy Press Release, 6/6/12]The Recovery Act Made The Most Significant Investment In Federal Carbon Capture Research And Development Since The 2007 Energy Bill. According to a report by the Congressional Research Service: “In addition to the annual appropriations provided for CCS RD&D, the legislation most significant to federal CCS RD&D program activities since passage of [Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007] EISA has been the Recovery Act (P.L. 111-5). As discussed below, $3.4 billion in funding from the Recovery Act was intended to expand and accelerate the commercial deployment of CCS technologies to allow for commercial-scale demonstration in both new and retrofitted power plants and industrial facilities by 2020.” [Congressional Research Service, “Carbon Capture and Sequestration: Research, Development, and Demonstration at the U.S. Department of Energy,” 4/23/12]Bloomberg’s New Energy Finance Found That The United States Is Leading The Race For The World’s First Large-Scale Carbon Capture Project. From a Bloomberg New Energy Finance press release titled “America leads race for world’s first large-scale carbon capture and storage project”: “The top four places in the Bloomberg New Energy Finance Race To First, a semi-annual ranking of the world’s most advanced large-scale demonstration carbon capture and storage projects, are held by sites in North America.” [Bloomberg New Energy Finance Press Release, 5/29/12]THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION HAS SET A GOAL OF DEVELOPING COST-EFFECTIVE CLEAN COAL TECHNOLOGIES WITHIN 10 YEARS?The Obama Administration Has Set A Goal Of Developing Cost-Effective Technologies To Capture And Store Carbon Emitted From Power Plants Within 10 Years And Bring 5 To 10 Demonstration Projects Online By 2016. “The selections announced today will focus on developing carbon capture technologies that can achieve at least 90 percent CO2 removal and reduce the added costs at power plants with carbon capture systems to no more than a 35 percent increase in the cost of electricity produced at the plant. The Obama Administration has made a goal of developing cost-effective deployment of carbon capture, utilization and storage technologies within 10 years, with an objective of bringing 5 to 10 commercial demonstration projects online by 2016.” [Department of Energy, 8/25/11]President Obama Established An Interagency Task Force On Carbon Capture And Storage (CCS) That Delivered A Series Of Recommendations On Overcoming Barriers To The Widespread, Cost-Effective Deployment Of CCS Within 10 Years. “President Obama's Interagency Task Force on Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS), co-chaired by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Department of Energy (DOE), delivered a series of recommendations to the president today on overcoming the barriers to the widespread, cost-effective deployment of CCS within 10 years. CCS is a group of technologies for capturing, compressing, transporting and permanently storing power plant and industrial source emissions of carbon dioxide. Rapid development and deployment of clean coal technologies, particularly carbon capture and storage (CCS), will help position the United States as a leader in the global clean energy race. The report concludes that CCS can play an important role in domestic greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reductions while preserving the option of using coal and other abundant domestic fossil energy resources.” [Department of Energy, 8/12/10]PRESIDENT OBAMA HAS WORKED TO KEEP COAL MINERS SAFEUnder President Obama, The Department Of Labor Enacted Several Efforts To Improve Miner Safety And Health, Including Monthly Impact Inspections, The Pattern Of Violations Program, And Education And Outreach Within The Industry. “In a speech before attendees of the West Virginia Coal Association's 39th Annual Mining Symposium in Charleston today, Assistant Secretary of Labor Joseph A. Main discussed the current state of mine safety and health — and ongoing efforts to improve it — by both the U.S. Department of Labor's Mine Safety and Health Administration and the mining industry at large. Main highlighted a number of strategic initiatives that have been implemented which the agency believes have markedly improved miner safety and health, including monthly impact inspections, the pattern of violations program, and education and outreach within the industry. ‘I believe the actions we have taken at MSHA, along with those of the mining industry, are making a difference and making mines safer for the nation's miners,’ said Main. ‘Enhanced enforcement and regulatory and administrative changes, along with increased compliance and responsibility from the industry, have resulted in gains for the cause of miner safety.’” [Department of Labor, 2/2/12]Pushback: President Obama’s Plans For Clean Energy Are A “Fantasy”PRESIDENT OBAMA’S ALL-OF-THE-ABOVE APPROACH TO ENERGY BUILDS A CLEAN ENERGY ECONOMY AND IS HELPING LOWER OUR DEPENDENCE ON FOREIGN OILPRESIDENT OBAMA’S INVESTMENTS IN CLEAN ENERGY HAVE SUPPORTED HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF JOBS IN A SECTOR THAT EMPLOYS MILLIONS OF AMERICANSThe President’s Council Of Economic Advisors Estimated That Recovery Act Investments In The Clean Energy Sector Created Or Saved 224,500 Jobs As Of The End Of 2010.? “Clean energy investments were responsible for nearly a quarter of the 1 million public investment jobs – or 224,500 clean energy jobs.” [Council Of Economic Advisors, White House Press Release, 11/18/10]According To The Bureau Of Labor Statistics, There Were 3.1 Million People Employed In The Production Of Green Goods And Services In 2010, Accounting For 2.4 Percent Of Total Employment. “In 2010, 3.1 million jobs in the United States were associated with the production of green goods and services, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. Green Goods and Services (GGS) jobs are found in businesses that produce goods and provide services that benefit the environment or conserve natural resources. GGS jobs accounted for 2.4 percent of total employment in 2010.” [Bureau of Labor Statistics, 3/22/12]UNDER PRESIDENT OBAMA, PRODUCTION OF RENEWABLE ENERGY IS AT RECORD LEVELS -- ELECTRICITY PRODUCTION FROM WIND AND SOLAR HAS MORE THAN DOUBLED SINCE 2008Total Production Of Renewable Energy Reached An All-Time High In 2011. According to Energy Information Administration data, total renewable energy production reached an all-time high in 2011, when the United States produced 9,236 trillion Btu of energy from biomass and renewable sources. [Energy Information Administration, Monthly Energy Review, September 2012]Net Electricity Generation From Wind Has More Than Doubled Between 2008 And 2011. In 2008, wind generated 55,363 megawatthours of electricity in the United States. In 2011 the United States produced 119,747 megawatthours of electricity from wind. [Energy Information Administration, Electric Power Monthly, September 2012]Net Electricity Generation From Solar Has More Than Doubled Between 2008 And 2011. In 2008, the United States produced 864 megawatthours of electricity from solar sources. In 2011 the United States produced 1,814 megawatthours of electricity from solar. [Energy Information Administration, Electric Power Monthly, September 2012]Pushback: Under President Obama, Gas Prices Have Risen SignificantlyPRESIDENT OBAMA’S ALL-OF-THE-ABOVE ENERGY STRATEGY IS FOCUSED ON RELIEVING PAIN AT THE PUMP AND REDUCING AMERICA’S DEPENDENCE ON FOREIGN OILDESPITE REPUBLICAN ALLEGATIONS, THE PRESIDENT IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR RISING GAS PRICESCato Institute Senior Fellows: “Is President Obama Responsible For Spiraling Price Of Gasoline? Republicans Say Yes, But The Facts Say No.” In a post on US News And World Report’s Debate Club blog, Cato Institute Senior Fellows Peter Van Doren and Jerry Taylor wrote: “Is President Obama responsible for spiraling price of gasoline? Republicans say yes, but the facts say no.” [U.S. News And World Report’s Debate Club blog, 3/2/12]Paul Bledsoe Of The Bipartisan Policy Center Stated That The Idea That A Politician Can “Wave A Magic Wand” And Impact Gas Prices “Is Preposterous.” “‘This notion that a politician can wave a magic wand and impact the 90-million-barrel-a-day global oil market is preposterous,’ said Paul Bledsoe, strategic adviser to the Bipartisan Policy Center and a former Clinton administration official.” [Washington Post, 3/12/12]According To Oil Experts And Economists, Today’s Oil Prices Are The Result Of Decades Of Exploration, Car Design, Consumer Habits, Political Turmoil In Sudan And Libya, The Conflict With Iran, And More. “A lot, say American voters. According to oil experts and economists, not so much — at least in the short term. Today’s oil prices are the product of years and decades of exploration, automobile design and ingrained consumer habits combined with political events in places such as Sudan and Libya, anxiety about possible conflict with Iran, and the energy aftershocks of last year’s earthquake in Japan.” [Washington Post, 3/12/12]DOMESTIC OIL AND NATURAL GAS PRODUCTION HAS INCREASED EVERY YEAR UNDER PRESIDENT OBAMA, AND OUR DEPENDENCE ON FOREIGN OIL IS THE LOWEST IT’S BEEN IN 20 YEARSIn The First Quarter Of 2012, Domestic Crude Oil Production Is At Its Highest Level In 14 Years. “Strong growth in U.S. crude oil production since the fourth quarter of 2011 is due mainly to higher output from North Dakota, Texas, and federal leases in the Gulf of Mexico, with total U.S. production during the first quarter of 2012 topping 6 million barrels per day (bbl/d) for the first time in 14 years. In the first five months of 2012, the United States has produced an average of 6.165 million barrels of oil per day.” [Energy Information Administration, 6/8/12]Domestic Crude Oil Production Has Increased Every Year Since President Obama Took Office. In 2008, the United States was producing 5 million barrels of oil per day. In 2009, the United States produced 5.353 million barrels of oil per day, in 2010 the U.S. produced 5.479 million barrels of oil per day, and in 2011 the U.S. is estimated to have produced 5.658 million barrels of oil per day. [Energy Information Administration Monthly Energy Review, September 2012]Domestic Marketed Production Of Natural Gas Has Increased Every Year Since President Obama Took Office. In 2008, marketed production of natural gas was 21,112,053 million cubic feet, in 2009 marketed production of natural gas was 21,647,936 million cubic feet, in 2010 marketed production was 22,402,141 million cubic feet. In 2011 marketed production of natural gas was 24,169,613 million cubic feet. [Calculated from Energy Information Administration data, data released6/29/12]Since President Obama Took Office, The Number Of Rigs Drilling For Oil In The United States Has More Than Quadrupled. In January 2009 there were 328 rigs drilling for oil in the United States. As of June 2012 there were 1,409 rigs drilling for oil in the United States. [Calculated from Energy Information Administration data, data released 8/6/12]In The First Eight Months Of 2012, The United States’ Dependence On Foreign Oil Was At Its Lowest Level In 20 Years. According to the Energy Information Administration, in the first eight months of 2012, the percent of net imports of petroleum as a share of petroleum products supplied averaged 41.9%. According to Energy Information Administration data, this is the lowest level since 1992 when the percent of net petroleum imports as a share of petroleum product supplied was 40.7%. [Calculated from Energy Information Administration data, Monthly Energy Review, September 2012]PRESIDENT OBAMA’S FUEL ECONOMY STANDARDS WILL SAVE DRIVERS MORE THAN $8,000 AT THE PUMP – ROUGHLY EQUIVALENT TO LOWERING THE PRICE OF GAS BY $1The Obama Administration’s Fuel Economy Standards Will Double The Fuel Economy Of Cars And Light Trucks By 2025. “The Obama administration on Tuesday introduced new rules to double fuel economy for cars and light-duty trucks by 2025, a move that the White House says will be comparable to cutting a dollar a gallon from the price of gasoline and that auto dealers warned would raise the cost of a new car.” [McClatchy Newspapers, 8/28/12]The Obama Administration’s Fuel Efficiency Program Save The Average Car Buyer More Than $8,000 At The Pump. From an Environmental Protection Agency press release: “The Administration’s combined efforts represent the first meaningful update to fuel efficiency standards in decades. Together, they will save American families more than $1.7 trillion dollars in fuel costs, resulting in an average fuel savings of more than $8,000 by 2025 over the lifetime of the vehicle.” [Environmental Protection Agency Press Release, 8/28/12]The Obama Administration’s Fuel Economy Standards Will Create Savings At The Pump Roughly Equivalent To Lowering The Price Of Gasoline By $1. “The Administration’s combined efforts represent the first meaningful update to fuel efficiency standards in decades. Together, they will save American families more than $1.7 trillion dollars in fuel costs, resulting in an average fuel savings of more than $8,000 by 2025 over the lifetime of the vehicle. For families purchasing a model Year 2025 vehicle, the net savings will be comparable to lowering the price of gasoline by approximately $1 per gallon.” [Environmental Protection Agency Press Release, 8/28/12]?According To The International Energy Agency, U.S. Oil Imports Are Expected To “Decline Significantly” Because Of New Fuel Efficiency Standards And Increased Domestic Oil And Gas Production, And By 2015, The U.S. Is No Longer Expected To Be The World’s Biggest Oil Importer. “The European Union is expected to overtake the United States as the world’s biggest oil importer in 2015, the International Energy Agency said Wednesday in its annual report. Oil imports to the United States are expected to decline significantly over the coming years because of new efficiency standards for cars and trucks and an increase in domestic oil and natural gas production, said Fatih Birol, chief economist of the agency.” [New York Times, 11/9/11]Pushback: President Obama Has Made It More Difficult To DrillPRESIDENT OBAMA HAS MADE MILLIONS OF ACRES AVAILABLE FOR DEVELOPMENT, AND UNDER HIS LEADERSHIP, OIL PRODUCTION IS AT A 14-YEAR HIGH AND NATURAL GAS PRODUCTION HIT AN ALL TIME HIGHSINCE PRESIDENT OBAMA TOOK OFFICE, THE NUMBER OF RIGS DRILLING FOR OIL IN THE UNITED STATES HAS MORE THAN QUADRUPLED TO A 25-YEAR HIGHSince President Obama Took Office, The Number Of Rigs Drilling For Oil In The United States Has More Than Quadrupled To A 25 Year High. In January 2009 there were 328 rigs drilling for oil in the United States. As of June 2012 there were 1,409 rigs drilling for oil in the United States, the most that have been operating in the United States in 25 years. [Calculated from Energy Information Administration and Baker Hughes rig count data, data released 8/6/12]PRESIDENT OBAMA HAS MADE MILLIONS OF ACRES OF PUBLIC LANDS AVAILABLE FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF OIL AND GAS RESOURCES BOTH ON AND OFFSHOREIn 2011, The Obama Administration Held 32 Onshore Oil And Gas Lease Sales, Offering Nearly 4.4 Million Acres For Development And Selling Nearly Three-Quarters Of The Land Offered. “During calendar year 2011, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) held 32 onshore oil and gas lease sales, offering 1,755 parcels of land covering nearly 4.4 million acres.? 1,296 parcels of land were sold – nearly three-quarters of those offered – generating about $256 million in revenue for American taxpayers.” [Bureau of Land Management, 1/10/12]The Obama Administration Plans To Hold 32 Onshore Lease Sales In 2012. “[T]he Interior Department will hold 32 additional sales in calendar year 2012, Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar announced today. … The BLM’s 32 oil and natural gas lease sales in calendar year 2012 will offer thousands of parcels in California, Colorado, the Eastern States, Montana, New Mexico, Nevada, Utah, and Wyoming.” [Bureau of Land Management, 1/10/12]The Obama Administration’s Five-Year Offshore Leasing Plan Makes More Than 75 Percent Of Offshore Oil And Gas Resources Available For Development. According to a Bureau of Ocean Energy Management fact sheet, there are 159.49 billion barrels of undiscovered technically recoverable oil equivalent in the Outer Continental Shelf. The 2012 – 2017 proposed final leasing plan makes 122.27 billion barrels of undiscovered technically recoverable oil equivalent in the Outer Continental Shelf available for leasing, representing 76.6% of total offshore resources. [Bureau of Ocean Energy Management Fact Sheet, accessed 6/28/12]THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION HAS TAKEN STEPS TO STREAMLINE FEDERAL OVERSIGHT OF DRILLING OPERATIONSIn The Past Year, Permit Review Times For Offshore Drilling Have “Decreased Significantly” Because Of Steps The Obama Administration Has Taken To Familiarize Operators With The Permit Process And Increase Transparency. “We have begun to balance workloads for our engineers by taking some permit applications and moving them around to different districts.? We have also allowed authorized users of our online permit application system to track the status of their applications.? This answered the call from many operators for greater transparency in our permitting process.? As a result of these steps, and the industry’s increasing familiarity with the process, permit review times have decreased significantly in the past year.? Rigs that had left the Gulf of Mexico are returning, new rigs are being contracted, and we are starting to see a small inventory of unused drilling permits develop.” [Statement of Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement Director James Watson, House Natural Resources Committee, 3/8/12]President Obama Has Taken Action To Streamline Oversight Of Natural Gas Drilling, A Move That Was Praised By Industry For Its Acknowledgement That States Are The Primary Regulators Of Natural Gas. “President Barack Obama streamlined oversight of the natural gas drilling boom on Friday as his administration faced increasing pressure to allow exports of the fuel as supplies swell. Obama issued an executive order creating an interagency group to oversee development of natural gas, building on a pledge he made in his State of the Union address in January to support the industry while increasing safety. … The order seeks to coordinate regulation among agencies and their efforts to boost use of natural gas in cars and trucks. Several energy industry groups, including the American Petroleum Institute and America's Natural Gas Alliance, praised the directive for its acknowledgement that states, not the federal government, are the primary regulators of natural gas.” [Reuters, 4/13/12]Pushback: President Obama Blocked The Keystone PipelinePRESIDENT OBAMA IS ENCOURAGING THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE SOUTHERN PORTION OF THE KEYSTONE PIPELINE WHILE TAKING STEPS TO ENSURE THAT THE HEALTH AND SAFETY OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ARE PROTECTEDPRESIDENT OBAMA HAS PLEDGED TO “TAKE EVERY STEP POSSIBLE TO EXPEDITE” THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE OKLAHOMA-TO-TEXAS PORTION OF THE KEYSTONE XL PIPELINE??The Obama Administration Committed To “Take Every Step Possible To Expedite The Necessary Federal Permits” For The Portion Of The Pipeline Connecting Cushing To Texas Refineries. “Moving oil from the Midwest to the world-class, state-of-the-art refineries on the Gulf Coast will modernize our infrastructure, create jobs, and encourage American energy production. We look forward to working with TransCanada to ensure that it is built in a safe, responsible and timely manner, and we commit to take every step possible to expedite the necessary Federal permits.” [Statement by the Press Secretary, 2/27/12]The Army Corps Of Engineers Granted A Permit To TransCanada To Begin Construction On The Portion Of The Keystone XL Pipeline That Passes Through Texas. “The Obama administration, moving swiftly on the president’s promise to expedite the southernmost portion of the disputed Keystone XL pipeline, has granted construction permits for part of the route passing through Texas, officials said on Tuesday. The Army Corps of Engineers on Monday told TransCanada, which wants to build a 1,700-mile pipeline to carry heavy crude from Alberta to the Gulf Coast, that it could begin construction on the portion of the proposed pipeline that would end at the gulf port of Nederland, Tex.” [New York Times, “Green” Blog, 6/26/12]President Obama Issued A Presidential Memorandum Directing Federal Agencies To Expedite The Cushing Pipeline And Others That Relieve Bottlenecks – Making These Projects The Top Priority Of The Administration’s Infrastructure Expediting Process. “Although expanding and modernizing our Nation's pipeline infrastructure will not lower prices right away, it is a vital part of a sustained strategy to continue to reduce our reliance on foreign oil and enhance our Nation's energy security. Therefore, as part of my Administration's broader efforts to improve the performance of Federal permitting and review processes, we must make pipeline infrastructure a priority, ensuring the health, safety, and security of communities and the environment while supporting projects that can contribute to economic growth and a secure energy future. In doing so, the Federal Government must work in partnership with State, local, and tribal governments, which play a central role in the siting and permitting of pipelines; and, we must protect our natural resources and address the concerns of local communities.” [Presidential Memorandum -- Expediting Review of Pipeline Projects from Cushing, Oklahoma, to Port Arthur, Texas, and Other Domestic Pipeline Infrastructure Projects, 3/22/12]Under President Obama, The United States Has Added Enough Pipeline To Circle The Earth And Then Some. From a Tampa Bay Times PolitiFact fact check of President Obama’s statement that the United States has “added enough new oil and gas pipeline to circle the Earth and then some”:“That adds up to 2,490,257 oil and gas pipeline miles in 2008, and 2,519,861 in 2010. So that's 29,604 additional miles of pipeline. According to NASA, the equatorial circumference of the Earth is 24,873.6 miles. Obama's comparison is accurate, and given that the latest figures only cover through 2010, the real, current figure is likely higher.” [Tampa Bay Times, PolitiFact, 4/23/12]BECAUSE OF AN ARBITRARY TIMELINE IMPOSED BY CONGRESSIONAL REPUBLICANS, THE STATE DEPARTMENT DID NOT?HAVE SUFFICIENT TIME TO ASSESS THE POTENTIAL IMPACT OF THE KEYSTONE XL PROJECT?President Obama’s Decision On The Keystone XL Pipeline Was Made Because Congressional Republicans Placed A Deadline On The Project That Prevented A Full Assessment. “As the State Department made clear last month, the rushed and arbitrary deadline insisted on by Congressional Republicans prevented a full assessment of the pipeline’s impact, especially the health and safety of the American people, as well as our environment.? As a result, the Secretary of State has recommended that the application be denied.? And after reviewing the State Department’s report, I agree.” [Statement by the President on the Keystone XL Pipeline, 1/18/12]Nebraska’s Lawmakers, Including Republican Governor Dave Heineman, Opposed The Original Route Of The Keystone XL Pipeline Because It Passed Over A Major Source Of Freshwater. “Nebraska lawmakers today open a special legislative session to consider how the state might force TransCanada Corp. (TRP) to re-route its $7 billion Keystone XL pipeline. The company signaled yesterday it will fight any such law as unconstitutional. Ranchers, environmental activists and some state politicians including Republican Governor Dave Heineman oppose the pipeline’s path across a major source of freshwater in Nebraska. The 1,661-mile (2,673-kilometer) Keystone XL would cross six states and bring crude from Canada’s oil sands to the Texas Gulf Coast.” [Bloomberg, 10/31/11]Pushback: The Obama Administration Tried To Institute A National Energy TaxINDEPENDENT FACT CHECKERS HAVE DISPUTED THE NOTION THAT CAP-AND-TRADE LEGISLATION AMOUNTED TO A NATIONAL ENERGY TAXTampa Bay Times PolitiFact: Republicans Often Refer To Cap And Trade As A Tax, But “We Have Found That Is Incorrect.” “Opponents of cap-and-trade argue that forcing industry to buy pollution credits is nothing more than a tax on consumers and business. Firms will have no choice but to pass the cost of buying those permits on to consumers. There has been much debate about how much those costs could be, and it's been difficult to come up with a reliable number because the bills have been changing as they move through the House and the Senate. Republicans have cited numbers as high as $3,000 per year, a claim that when it was combined with a falsehood on health care, earned our Pants on Fire rating. Republicans often refer to it as a tax, although we have found that is incorrect. Only utilities that exceed their limits would have to pay for the allowances, which does not sound to us like a tax on families.” [Tampa Bay Times PolitiFact, 9/18/09]Tampa Bay Times PolitiFact: The Claim That Cap And Trade Would Impose A $1,700 Yearly Energy Tax Is False. “In a Sept. 16, 2009, press release, the Tennessean said, ‘American families can’t afford a new $1,761 yearly energy tax.’? Similar numbers were widely posted on conservative blogs. A story on the Weekly Standard was headlined, ‘Obama Admin Concedes: Cap and Trade Will Raise Your Taxes by 15%.’ … But back to Alexander's original claim. His statement that households will pay $1,761 in new taxes every year is based on a blogger's incorrect assumptions and overly simple math. The estimate does not account for revenue that will be returned to consumers in the form of rebates and other efficiency measures. Furthermore, the number is based on old numbers; the Treasury estimate was written on the premise that all permits would be sold, which, ultimately, is not the form that the Waxman-Markey legislation has taken. Finally, both Alexander and McCullagh portray money raised by selling these permits as a tax. We rate Alexander's claim False.” [Tampa Bay Times PolitiFact, 9/18/09]: The Cap-And-Trade Bill Raises Revenues, But “Is Not A ‘Tax’ In The Traditional Sense.” “That "job-killing national energy tax" phrasing has been part of the GOP songbook since at least last fall. The "national energy tax" Republicans are referring to is the cap-and-trade legislation passed by the House a year ago to curb greenhouse gas emissions (the Waxman-Markey bill). There’s a cap-and-trade bill pending in the Senate as well, sponsored by Democratic Sen. John Kerry and Independent Sen. Joe Lieberman. Both bills, while not identical, put a price on carbon emissions.? … The cap-and-trade legislation is not a ‘tax’ in the traditional sense. But it does aim to raise prices of carbon-based fuels.” [, 6/16/10]Pushback: Politics Unduly Influenced Taxpayer-Backed Loans To SolyndraSOLYNDRA’S LOAN GUARANTEE WAS GRANTED BASED ON ITS MERITS AS PART OF A PROGRAM CREATED DURING THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION, AND IT WAS PRAISED AS AN INNOVATIVE BUSINESS BEFORE AND AFTERRECEIVING THE LOAN GUARANTEEROMNEY’S PREVIOUS CLAIMS OF CRONYISM HAVE BEEN RATED FALSE BY NUMEROUS INDEPENDENT FACT CHECKERSPolitico: “Fact-Checkers Debunk Mitt Romney’s Solyndra Claim.” [Politico, 6/5/12]Associated Press: “There is No Proof” That The Inspector General Testified That Solyndra’s Funding Was Granted Because Of Ties To Campaign Contributors. “There is no proof — and it appears unlikely — that Energy Department Inspector General Gregory Friedman was talking about Solyndra when he testified in March 2011 about stimulus contracts. Friedman said his office was investigating whether such contracts were steered to friends and family, presumably of government officials in charge of spending stimulus money. Romney cited a Newsweek article that referred to Friedman's testimony. But Friedman did not say that such claims had been proved, and there is no evidence he was including Solyndra in his comments.” [Associated Press, 6/1/12]The Department Of Energy’s Inspector General’s Office Stated That “None Of The Cases That Resulted In Convictions For Recovery Act Fraud Were Related To The Directing Of Contracts Or Grants To Family Or Friends.” “Yesterday in California, Mitt Romney stood in front of the failed Solyndra factory and said ‘an independent inspector general looked at this investment and concluded that the administration had steered money to friends and family, to campaign contributors.’ … ‘We cannot comment on open or closed cases not in the public domain,’ a spokeswoman for the Inspector General’s office told ABC News. ‘However, none of the cases that resulted in convictions for recovery act fraud were related to the directing of contracts or grants to family or friends.’ ” [Jake Tapper, ABC News, 6/1/12]ABC News’ Jake Tapper: The Claim That The Inspector General Said That Friends And Family Benefited With Stimulus Funds “Is Simply False.” “Neither example has anything to do with the claim Romney and his campaign are making, that the inspector general has testified the contracts have been steered to friends and family. There are certainly donors who benefited from the program, and big donors – “bundlers” – who benefited from the program. But friends and family benefiting is a charge that has yet to be proven – and it has certainly never been alleged by the Inspector General. The charge is simply false.” [Jake Tapper, ABC News, 6/1/12]AFTER MORE THAN A YEAR OF COSTLY INVESTIGATIONS, HOUSE REPUBLICANS HAVE “TURNED UP NO EVIDENCE OF WRONGDOING”The Hill: “Despite Allegations About Political Donors Influencing Loan Decisions, The Lengthy House GOP Probe Of Solyndra Did Not Show Political Favoritism.” “Defenders of the loan guarantees say that while Solyndra's demise was unfortunate, the overall program has succeeded in backing companies that have created jobs and helped expand renewable component manufacturing and green power generation. Obama administration officials have pointed to the White House-commissioned outside review released in February that provided a lower estimate of taxpayer risk than an earlier forecast. Despite allegations about political donors influencing loan decisions, the lengthy House GOP probe of Solyndra did not show political favoritism.” [The Hill, “E2 Wire” Blog, 5/29/12]Bloomberg’s Joshua Green: “House Republicans Have Sent 32 Congressional Letters, Compelled 187,000 Pages Of Administration Documents, 72,000 Pages Of Documents From Solyndra Investors, 9 Committee Staff Briefings, 5 Committee Hearings, And A Sworn Committee Interview With The Obama Bundler Who Raised Money From People Involved In The Company.” [Joshua Green, Bloomberg Businessweek, 2/17/12]?Bloomberg’s Joshua Green: Much Of The House Energy And Commerce Committee’s $7 Million Budget Has Gone To Investigating Solyndra But Has Turned Up “No Evidence Of Wrongdoing.” “Today marks the one-year anniversary of the ongoing congressional investigation of Solyndra, the failed solar company that received a $535 million federal stimulus loan… Much (but not all) of the committee’s $7 million budget has been devoted to funding this inquisition. And it’s turned up no evidence of wrongdoing.” [Joshua Green, Bloomberg Businessweek, 2/17/12]?SOLYNDRA RECEIVED FUNDING THROUGH A DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY PROGRAM CREATED UNDER THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION AND HAD THE SUPPORT OF A MAJORITY OF REPUBLICANSTampa Bay Times PolitiFact: President Bush Signed Legislation That Established The Department Of Energy’s Loan Guarantee Program And Touted The Program On His Way Out Of Office. “Plouffe said that the loan guarantee program that awarded half a billion dollars in guarantees to Solyndra ‘was supported by President Bush.’ The program was created on Bush's watch by a law he signed and promoted. The program grew under the Obama administration, which ultimately awarded Solyndra's loan guarantee under a new section of the law created by the stimulus. The Bush administration, though, promoted the loan guarantee program, and Bush himself touted it on his way out of office. There's also evidence his administration specifically prioritized Solyndra's project. We find Plouffe's statement Mostly True.” [Tampa Bay Times, PolitiFact, 11/17/11]The Energy Policy Act Of 2005 Passed With Bipartisan Support In Both The House And Senate. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 passed the House by a vote of 275-156 with 200 Republicans supporting the bill. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 passed the Senate by a vote of 74-26 with 49 Republicans supporting the bill. [Clerk of the House of Representatives, Final Vote Results for Roll Call 445, 7/28/05; Secretary of the Senate, Vote Date 7/29/05]Solyndra Applied For A Loan Guarantee In 2006 And In 2007 Was Invited By The Bush Administration’s Department Of Energy To Submit A Full Application. According to a Department of Energy timeline of the Solyndra Loan Guarantee application: “Dec. 28, 2006: Solyndra submits pre-application, seeking funding for its Fab 1 manufacturing facility. April – June 2007: DOE conducts financial and technical review of Solyndra pre-application. Oct. 4, 2007: DOE invites Solyndra, and 15 other applicants, to submit full applications.” [Department of Energy,accessed 5/30/12]In September 2008, The Department Of Energy Indicated That Solyndra Was The “Earliest Mover” In The Loan Program And Could Receive A Conditional Loan By January 2009. According to a Department of Energy timeline of the Solyndra Loan Guarantee application: “Sept. 4, 2008: DOE loan programs staff draft memorandum indicating that Solyndra was the ‘earliest mover’ and may receive conditional commitment by January 16, 2009 … Dec. 4, 2008: DOE CFO notifies Acting DOE Deputy Secretary that presenting the Solyndra transaction for approval by Jan. 15, 2009 is one of the loan program’s three highest priorities.” [Department of Energy, accessed 5/30/12]SOLYNDRA WAS PRAISED AS A SUCCESSFUL AND INNOVATIVE COMPANY BOTH BEFORE AND AFTER RECEIVING THE ENERGY DEPARTMENT LOAN GUARANTEEMiami Herald PolitiFact: “As Recently As 2010, The Company Was Hailed As A Silicon Valley Superstar.” “As recently as 2010, the company was hailed as a Silicon Valley superstar, ranked a top clean-tech company by the Wall Street Journal and one of the "World's 50 Most Innovative Companies" by a Massachusetts Institute of Technology magazine.”[Miami Herald, PolitiFact, 11/15/11]March 2010: The Wall Street Journal Ranked Solyndra Fifth In Its List Of The Top 50 Venture-Backed Companies. The Wall Street Journal ranked Solyndra 5th on its list of the Top 50 Venture-Backed Companies, stating that “The rankings were calculated based on how each company scored in the following components: the track record of success for the venture-capital investors who sit on the company's board (Board Ranking); the amount of capital raised by the company over the last three years, in comparison to its peers (Total Equity Ranking); the track record of success for the company's founders and chief executive (Executive Ranking); and the recent growth in the value of the company (Valuation Ranking). As a last component, Dow Jones venture-capital reporters and editors also reviewed and ranked the companies. Overall rank is based on a weighted combination of all five components.” [Wall Street Journal, 3/9/10]In 2008, Solyndra Had Already Received More Than $600 Million In Private Sector Funding. “2008 was not a good year for most companies interested in raising venture capital. The recession made an already tough fundraising environment even more difficult. But according to Ernst and Young, clean tech was the exception, and VC investments in this sector reached a record $4.7 billion, up 68 percent over 2007… The big winner was Solyndra (), a company that designs and manufactures photovoltaic systems. It raised $219 million and is reported to have raised roughly $600 million in total venture financing.” [U.S. News and World Report, 2/6/09]CONTRASTPresident Obama Supports An All Of The Above Energy Plan, While Romney Would Slash Investments In Clean Energy And Cater To Big OilPRESIDENT OBAMA’S ALL-OF-THE-ABOVE APPROACH TO ENERGY HAS HELPED BOOST DOMESTIC OIL PRODUCTION AND REDUCE OUR DEPENDENCE ON FOREIGN OILPresident Obama Emphasized The Need For An “All-Out, All-Of-The-Above Strategy That Develops Every Available Source Of American Energy.” “But with only 2 percent of the world’s oil reserves, oil isn’t enough.? This country needs an all-out, all-of-the-above strategy that develops every available source of American energy – a strategy that’s cleaner, cheaper, and full of new jobs.“ [Remarks by the President in State of the Union Address, 1/24/12]In The First Quarter Of 2012, Domestic Crude Oil Production Is At Its Highest Level In 14 Years. “Strong growth in U.S. crude oil production since the fourth quarter of 2011 is due mainly to higher output from North Dakota, Texas, and federal leases in the Gulf of Mexico, with total U.S. production during the first quarter of 2012 topping 6 million barrels per day (bbl/d) for the first time in 14 years.” [Energy Information Administration, 6/8/12]Domestic Production Of Natural Gas Is At An All-Time High. According to Energy Information Administration data, the United States’ marketed production of natural gas was 24,169,613 million cubic in 2011, breaking the previous record of 22,647,549 million cubic feet in 1973. [Energy Information Administration, 8/31/12]In The First Eight Months Of 2012, The United States’ Dependence On Foreign Oil Was At Its Lowest Level In 20 Years. According to the Energy Information Administration, in the first seven months of 2012, the percent of net imports of petroleum as a share of petroleum products supplied averaged 41.9%. According to Energy Information Administration data, this is the lowest level since 1992 when the percent of net petroleum imports as a share of petroleum product supplied was 40.7%. [Calculated from Energy Information Administration data, Monthly Energy Review, September 2012]ROMNEY’S PLAN IS BASED ON OIL DRILLING AND CUTTING OFF INVESTMENTS IN RENEWABLE ENERGY – BUT WE CAN’T JUST DRILL OUR WAY TO ENERGY INDEPENDENCERomney Has The “View That The Government Should Cut Off Aid To Renewable Energy.” “Romney’s view that the government should cut off aid to renewable energy marks a reversal for the candidate.” [Washington Post, 6/8/12]TIME: “Romney Has Suggested That Wind And Solar Are ‘Imaginary’ Sources Of Energy, But They Can Now Power 15 Million Homes, And Their Industries Employ More Than 300,000 Americans. That’s Real.” “Before President Obama took office, the U.S. had 25 gigawatts of wind power, and the government’s ‘base case’ energy forecast expected 40 GW by 2030. Well, it’s not quite 2030 yet, but we’ve already got 50 GW of wind. We’ve also got about 5 GW of solar, which isn’t much, but is over six times more than we had before Obama. Mitt Romney has suggested that wind and solar are ‘imaginary’ sources of energy, but they can now power 15 million homes, and their industries employ more than 300,000 Americans. That’s real.” [Michael Grunwald, TIME, 8/10/12] The Hill Headline: “Romney Campaign: Let Wind Energy Credit Die This Year.” [The Hill, 7/30/12]Washington Post: “Romney’s Plan Spends A Lot Of Time Talking About Drilling” But “Energy Independence Will Require More Than Just Drilling — It Will Also Depend On Efficiency Standards That Romney Has Opposed.” “Energy independence will require more than just drilling — it will also depend on efficiency standards that Romney has opposed. Mitt Romney’s plan spends a lot of time talking about drilling. But it’s worth noting that both the EIA and Citigroup credit the Obama administration’s new fuel-economy standards for cars and light trucks as a major part of America’s lurch toward energy independence. By 2025, the increased CAFE standards are expected to reduce U.S. oil consumption by about 2.2 million barrels per day. Without those rules, energy independence looks nearly impossible. And Romney, for his part, has pledged to overturn those fuel-economy rules.” [Wonk Blog, Washington Post, 8/23/12]President Obama Would Cut Subsidies To Oil CompaniesPRESIDENT OBAMA HAS PROPOSED ENDING $4 BILLION IN TAX SUBSIDIES FOR OIL AND GAS COMPANIES, WHICH ARE SOME OF THE MOST PROFITABLE COMPANIES IN AMERICAPRESIDENT OBAMA HAS PROPOSED ENDING $4 BILLION IN TAX SUBSIDIES FOR OIL AND GAS COMPANIES?President Obama Supported Closing Tax Loopholes For Oil Companies. “We’ve subsidized oil companies for a century.?That’s long enough. It’s time to end the taxpayer giveaways to an industry that rarely has been more profitable, and double-down on a clean energy industry that never has been more promising.” [Remarks by the President at the State of the Union, 1/24/12]President Obama’s Proposed Budget For Fiscal Year 2013 Eliminates More Than $4 Billion In Subsidies For Oil, Gas, And Other Fossil Fuel Producers. “As we continue to pursue clean energy technologies that will support future economic growth, we should not devote scarce resources to subsidizing the use of fossil fuels produced by some of the largest, most profitable companies in the world. That is why the Budget eliminates inefficient fossil fuel subsidies that impede investment in clean energy sources and undermine efforts to address the threat of climate change. The Budget proposes to repeal over $4 billion per year in tax subsidies to oil, gas, and other fossil fuel producers.” [Department of Energy, Fiscal Year 2013]EXXON MOBIL AND CHEVRON ARE THE TWO MOST PROFITABLE COMPANIES IN AMERICA, AND IN 2011, THE BIG FIVE OIL COMPANIES MADE $137 BILLION IN PROFITSExxon Mobil And Chevron Are The Two Most Profitable Companies In America. According to the 2012 Fortune 500 list, Exxon Mobil and Chevron are the two most profitable companies in the United States. [Fortune 500 via CNN Money, 5/21/12]In 2011, BP, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, ExxonMobil, And Royal Dutch Shell Made A Record $137 Billion In Profits, Breaking The Record Of $136 Billion That Was Set In 2008, But Producing Less Oil. “General economic theory holds that companies will produce more of a good if its price is higher, or if it receives subsidies. Funny that these rules didn’t seem to apply to Big Oil in 2011, when the highest oil price since 1864 and $2 billion in subsidies to the five largest oil companies—BP, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, ExxonMobil, and Royal Dutch Shell—yielded lower oil production than in 2010. But these five oil companies combined made a record-high $137 billion in profits in 2011—up 75 percent from 2010—and have made more than $1 trillion in profits from 2001 through 2011. This exceeds the previous record of $136 billion in profits in 2008.” [Center for American Progress, 2/8/12]In 2011, BP, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, ExxonMobil, And Royal Dutch Shell Spent More Than $65 Million On Lobbying. According to data collected by the Center for Responsive Politics, in 2011, ConocoPhillips Spent $20,557,043 on lobbying, Royal Dutch Shell spent $14,790,000 on lobbying, ExxonMobil spent $12,730,000 on lobbying, Chevron spent $9,510,000 on lobbying, and BP spent $8,130,000 on lobbying. [Center for Responsive Politics, accessed 3/24/12]ROMNEY WOULD KEEP $4 BILLION A YEAR IN OIL SUBSIDIESRomney Would Keep $4 Billion A Year In Tax Incentives And Tax Breaks For Oil And Gas Drilling. Romney’s energy positions include: “Keep tax incentives and tax breaks for oil and gas drilling. These amount to about $4 billion a year.” [Washington Post, 9/11/12]Production Tax CreditPRESIDENT OBAMA IS CALLING ON CONGRESS TO EXTEND THE PRODUCTION TAX CREDIT, WHICH COULD LEAD TO HALF A MILLION JOBS IN THE WIND INDUSTRY BY 2030President Obama Is Calling On Congress To Extend The Production Tax Credit That Spurs Clean Energy Production By Providing A Tax Credit For The Production Of Clean Energy Like Wind. From a White House fact sheet: “The Production Tax Credit, which expires at the end of 2012, provides a 2.2 cent per kilowatt hour credit for utility scale wind producers. Congress should act to extend the credit. By extending the PTC benefits for American clean energy producers we can avoid layoffs across the country: The wind industry projects that nearly 30,000 jobs will be lost next year if the PTC expires, including direct jobs as well as those in its supply chain.” [White House Fact Sheet, 5/22/12]The American Wind Energy Association Projects That Failing To Extend The Production Tax Credits Would Put 37,000 Jobs At Risk. According to a press release from the American Wind Energy Association: “A recent study by Navigant Consulting found that extending the Production Tax Credit for wind energy will allow the industry to grow to 100,000 jobs in just four years, while an expiration would kill 37,000 jobs within a year.” [American Wind Energy Association, 4/25/12]According To A Study Conducted For The American Wind Energy Association, An Extension Of The Production Tax Credit Could Lead To 500,000 Jobs In The Wind Industry By 2030. According to the American Wind Energy Association, a study by Navigant Consulting found that “extending the PTC will allow the wind industry to grow to almost 100,000 American jobs in just four years and stay on track toward supporting 500,000 American jobs by 2030.” [American Wind Energy Association Press Release, 4/12/12]ROMNEY WOULD ELIMINATE THE WIND PRODUCTION TAX CREDIT The Hill Headline: “Romney Campaign: Let Wind Energy Credit Die This Year.” [The Hill, 7/30/12]Politico: Romney’s Opposition To “Any Extension Of The Wind Production Tax Credit Derailed A Bipartisan Agreement In The Senate To Renew The Industry’s Crucial Tax Break.” “Mitt Romney’s announcement this week that he opposes any extension of the wind production tax credit derailed a bipartisan agreement in the Senate to renew the industry’s crucial tax break, sources said Wednesday. The wind PTC, which expires at the end of this year, was originally going to be included in the bipartisan deal that the Senate Finance Committee announced early Wednesday, senior Senate sources familiar with the negotiations told POLITICO.” [Politico, 8/1/12]TIME: “Romney Has Suggested That Wind And Solar Are ‘Imaginary’ Sources Of Energy, But They Can Now Power 15 Million Homes, And Their Industries Employ More Than 300,000 Americans. That’s Real.” “Before President Obama took office, the U.S. had 25 gigawatts of wind power, and the government’s ‘base case’ energy forecast expected 40 GW by 2030. Well, it’s not quite 2030 yet, but we’ve already got 50 GW of wind. We’ve also got about 5 GW of solar, which isn’t much, but is over six times more than we had before Obama. Mitt Romney has suggested that wind and solar are ‘imaginary’ sources of energy, but they can now power 15 million homes, and their industries employ more than 300,000 Americans. That’s real.” [Michael Grunwald, TIME, 8/10/12] Pushback: President Obama Picked Winners And Losers As Part Of His DOE Loan ProgramPRESIDENT OBAMA REFUSES TO CEDE THE CLEAN ENERGY INDUSTRIES OF THE FUTURE TO GLOBAL COMPETITORS, AND HIS ADMINISTRATION’S INVESTMENTS ARE HELPING THE US BE COMPETITIVE IN THIS SECTORPRESIDENT OBAMA: I WILL NOT THE CEDE CLEAN ENERGY INDUSTRY TO CHINAPresident Obama: “I Will Not Cede The Wind Or The Solar Or The Battery Industry To China Or Germany.” “The payoff on these public investments, they don’t always come right away, and some technologies don’t pan out, and some companies will fail.? But as long as I’m President, I will not walk away from the promise of clean energy.? Your future is too important.? I will not -- I will not cede, I will not give up, I will not cede the wind or the solar or the battery industry to China or Germany because some politicians in Washington have refused to make the same commitment here in America.” [Remarks by the President on Energy, 2/23/12]SOLYNDRA WAS ONE OF OVER THIRTY COMPANIES SUPPORTED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY’S LOAN PROGRAM, AND THE PROGRAM IS EXPECTED TO SUPPORT TENS OF THOUSANDS OF JOBS ACROSS THE COUNTRYThe More Than 30 Projects In The Loan Guarantee Program’s Portfolio Are Expected To Support More Than 60,000 Jobs And Thousands Throughout The Supply Chain. According to a presentation compiled by the Department of Energy’s Loan Program Office: “30+ projects are expected to support over 60,000 jobs, plus thousands more in the supply chain” [Department of Energy Loan Programs Office, 6/21/12]?WITH THE HELP OF ENERGY DEPARTMENT LOANS, THE UNITED STATES OVERTOOK CHINA – WHICH IS INVESTING BILLIONS IN SOLAR TECHNOLOGY -- IN 2011 TO BECOME THE GLOBAL LEADER IN CLEAN ENERGY INVESTMENTSInvestment In Clean Energy Reached A Record Of $260 Billion Worldwide In 2011, With The United States Surpassing China For The First Time Since 2008. “Across the spectrum of clean energy opportunities, investment reached a record $260 billion worldwide in 2011 and for the first time since 2008, the U.S. surpassed China in clean energy investment.” [Forbes, 3/20/12]Investments In The U.S. Solar Energy Industry Reached An All-Time High In 2011. “For the U.S. solar energy industry, 2011 was a historic year. … The dollar amount of project finance investments reached an all-time high and traditional energy companies such as MidAmerican Energy Holdings, Exelon and NRG Energy became equity investors in the largest planned solar projects in the country.” [Solar Energy Industries Association and GTM Research, 2011]In 2010, The United States Was A Net Exporter Of Solar Energy Products And Had A Positive Trade Balance With China. “With respect to solar energy-related trade lows to China, U.S. imports in 2010 were estimated at $1.4 billion, while exports were estimated to be between $1.7 billion - $2.0 billion based on the availability of data for capital equipment sales. This made the U.S. a net exporter of solar goods to China by $247 million to $539 million. Imports came predominantly from modules ($1.2 billion), while exports were driven by capital equipment ($708 million to $1 billion) and polysilicon ($873 million).” [Solar Energy Industries Association, “U.S. Solar Energy Trade Assessment 2011,” August 2011]The China Development Bank Offered $34 Billion In Financing For Solar Manufacturing Companies Between 2010 And 2011, Whereas The United States Has Only Extended $1.3 Billion For Solar Manufacturing. “Bloomberg estimates that in the past year and a half alone, the China Development Bank has offered $34 billion in government-backed financing to solar manufacturing companies, while our own Loan Program has only extended $1.3 billion in financing for solar manufacturing projects since its inception.” [Department of Energy, 11/17/11]REPUBLICANS IN CONGRESS WROTE NUMEROUS LETTERS TO THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY ADVOCATING FOR PROJECTS TO RECEIVE FUNDING FROM THE LOAN PROGRAM?Senator Mitch McConnell (R-KY) Wrote To Secretary Chu Supporting A Loan Application For An Electric Car Manufacturer, Saying “I Hope You Will Realize The Importance Of Such Job Creation To Kentucky.” [Letter To Secretary Chu, 7/31/2009]?January 2009: Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) Wrote To Energy Secretary Steven Chu In Support Of A Loan Guarantee For An Electric Car Maker In His District. [WSJ, 9/22/2011]?Rep. Darrell Issa Wrote, “Awarding This Opportunity To Aptera Motors Will Greatly Assist A Leading Developer Of Electric Vehicles In My District.” [Letter To Secretary Chu, 1/14/2009]?Rep Darrell Issa: “Aptera’s Project Will Also Promote Domestic Job Creation Throughout California As Well As In Other States.” [Letter To Secretary Chu, 1/14/2009]Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX) Wrote To Secretary Chu Supporting A Loan Guarantee Application For A Texas Solar Project, Saying It Would “Serve As An Example of How The Clean Energy Sector Is Helping Those Industries Hardest Hit by The Current Economic Downturn To Advance In New, Innovative Directions.” [Letter To Secretary Chu, 7/31/2009]?Republican Congressmen Fred Upton, Dave Camp, And Mike Rogers Of Michigan Signed Letters To Secretary Chu “Pushing At Least Five Clean-Energy Projects” In Michigan. [New York Times, 9/19/2011]?Indiana Republicans Including Sen. Richard Lugar, Rep. Dan Burton, And Rep. Mike Pence Wrote A Letter To DOE In “Strong Support” Of The Abound Solar Loan Guarantee, Calling It A “Worthwhile Request.” “We are writing to share with out our strong support and encouragement for a revised loan application which has been submitted by Abound Solar, Inc. to the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) under the Department’s Title XVII Loan Guarantee Program. … Thank you for this opportunity to share with you our interest in – and strong support for – this worthwhile project.” [Letter to The Honorable Dr. Steven Chu, 10/30/09]?The Letter Further Stated That The Lawmakers Were “Encouraged By The Increased Emphasis On Energy Efficiency And On Renewables Sources Of Energy Generation” And Wanted “To Help DOE With These Objectives.” “We commend our state and local officials for their concerted efforts to attract industries to locate and prosper in Indiana. We are encouraged by the increased emphasis on energy efficiency and on renewables sources of energy generation for the nation. WE believe Indiana will play an important role in our shared goals in this important area, and we want to help DOE with these objectives.” [Letter to The Honorable Dr. Steven Chu, 10/30/09]?AS GOVERNOR, ROMNEY PICKED WINNERS AND LOSERS INCLUDING A HANDOUT OF $4.5 MILLION IN GOVERNMENT LOANS TO TWO COMPANIES RUN BY HIS DONORS – COMPANIES THAT HAVE SINCE DEFAULTED?Headline: “As Governor, Romney Picked Winners And Losers” [Reuters, 5/30/12]As Governor, Romney “Pursued A Hands-On Approach To Economic Development That Favored Some Industries Over Others And, In Some Instances, Singled Out Individual Firms For Special Favors.” [Reuters, 5/30/12]Romney “Promoted Venture Capital-Style Funds That Extended Loans To Start-Up Companies, Some Of Which Subsequently Went Out Of Business.” [Reuters, 5/30/12]When Romney Was Governor, Massachusetts Gave $4.5 Million In Government Loans To Two Firms Run By Romney Campaign Donors That Have Since Defaulted. “GOP presidential hopeful Mitt Romney has hammered President Obama for his administration’s tax-funded investment blunders — but when Romney was governor, the state handed out $4.5 million in loans to two firms run by his campaign donors that have since defaulted, leaving taxpayers holding the bag. The two companies — Acusphere and Spherics Inc. — stiffed the state on nearly $2.1 million in loans provided through the state’s Emerging Technology Fund, a $25 million investment program created while Romney was governor in 2003 that benefitted 13 local firms.” [Boston Herald, 12/1/11]THE ROMNEY ADMINISTRATION APPROVED NEARLY $500 MILLION IN STATE CONTRACTS TO COMPANIES THAT FUNNELED MORE THAN $150,000 TO HIS GUBERNATORIAL CAMPAIGN AND THE RGA WHICH ROMNEY CHAIREDBoston Herald Headline: “State Contractors Funneled $150G To Romney Campaign: Big Contributors Got $500M In Work” [Boston Herald, 7/8/12]Boston Herald: “Romney’s Administration Approved Nearly $500 Million In Bay State Contracts From 39 Companies That Funneled More Than $150,000 To His Gubernatorial Campaign And The Republican Governors Association.” ?[Boston Herald, 7/8/12]Romney Approved Contracts For “Companies Where The Employees Had Donated Up To $60,000 To His Campaign Or The Republican Governors Association During His Chairmanship From 2004 To2006.” “Romney, while serving as Massachusetts governor, approved paving, construction and software contracts for companies where the employees had donated up to $60,000 to his campaign or the Republican Governors Association during his chairmanship from 2004 to 2006.” [Boston Herald, 7/8/12]President Obama Has Invested In Clean Coal, But Romney Claimed A Coal Plant “Kills People”UNDER PRESIDENT OBAMA, EMPLOYMENT IN THE COAL MINING INDUSTRY REACHED ITS HIGHEST LEVEL SINCE 1996, AND HIS INVESTMENTS IN THE COAL INDUSTRY ARE HELPING TO DEVELOP THE NEXT GENERATION OF COAL-FIRED POWER PLANTSEMPLOYMENT IN THE COAL MINING INDUSTRY REACHED A 15-YEAR HIGH IN 2011Nationwide In 2011, Employment In The Coal Mining Industry Hit Its Highest Level Since 1996. According to preliminary data from the Mine Safety and Health Administration, the average number of employees in the coal mining industry was 94,729, the highest average employment since 1996 when there were 96,324 people employed in the coal mining industry. [Mine Safety and Health Administration, Mine Injury and Worktime Quarterly Statistics Coal Data 1993-2010, accessed 4/15/12; Mine Safety and Health Administration, Mine Injury and Worktime, Quarterly, January – December 2011, Final]Employment In The Coal Mining Industry Has Increased Nearly By Four Percent Since President Obama Took Office. According to data from the Mine Safety and Health Administration, there were 94,058 people employed in the coal mining industry in the first half of 2012. In 2008, there were 90,055 people employed in the coal mining industry. [Mine Safety and Health Administration, Mine Injury and Worktime, Quarterly, January – December 2008, Final; Mine Safety and Health Administration, Mine Injury and Worktime, Quarterly, January – June 2012, Preliminary]THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION HAS MADE HISTORIC INVESTMENTS IN CLEAN COAL TECHNOLOGY AND IS SUPPORTING DOZENS OF PROJECTS ACROSS THE COUNTRYThe Obama Administration Is Implementing A More Than $5 Billion Investment Strategy In Clean Coal Research And Development Which Has Attracted More Than $10 Billion In Private Investment. “Today’s awards are part of a more than $5 billion investment strategy by the Obama Administration in clean coal technologies and R&D. This strategy, which has attracted over $10 billion in additional private capital investment, is designed to accelerate commercial deployment of clean coal technologies – particularly carbon capture and storage (CCS) – and to position the United States as a leader in the global clean energy race.” [Department of Energy Press Release, 6/6/12]The Recovery Act Made The Most Significant Investment In Federal Carbon Capture Research And Development Since The 2007 Energy Bill. According to a report by the Congressional Research Service: “In addition to the annual appropriations provided for CCS RD&D, the legislation most significant to federal CCS RD&D program activities since passage of [Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007] EISA has been the Recovery Act (P.L. 111-5). As discussed below, $3.4 billion in funding from the Recovery Act was intended to expand and accelerate the commercial deployment of CCS technologies to allow for commercial-scale demonstration in both new and retrofitted power plants and industrial facilities by 2020.” [Congressional Research Service, “Carbon Capture and Sequestration: Research, Development, and Demonstration at the U.S. Department of Energy,” 4/23/12]Bloomberg’s New Energy Finance Found That The United States Is Leading The Race For The World’s First Large-Scale Carbon Capture Project. From a Bloomberg New Energy Finance press release titled “America leads race for world’s first large-scale carbon capture and storage project”: “The top four places in the Bloomberg New Energy Finance Race To First, a semi-annual ranking of the world’s most advanced large-scale demonstration carbon capture and storage projects, are held by sites in North America.” [Bloomberg New Energy Finance Press Release, 5/29/12]THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION HAS SET A GOAL OF DEVELOPING COST-EFFECTIVE CLEAN COAL TECHNOLOGIES WITHIN 10 YEARS?The Obama Administration Has Set A Goal Of Developing Cost-Effective Technologies To Capture And Store Carbon Emitted From Power Plants Within 10 Years And Bring 5 To 10 Demonstration Projects Online By 2016. “The selections announced today will focus on developing carbon capture technologies that can achieve at least 90 percent CO2 removal and reduce the added costs at power plants with carbon capture systems to no more than a 35 percent increase in the cost of electricity produced at the plant. The Obama Administration has made a goal of developing cost-effective deployment of carbon capture, utilization and storage technologies within 10 years, with an objective of bringing 5 to 10 commercial demonstration projects online by 2016.” [Department of Energy, 8/25/11]UNDER PRESIDENT OBAMA, THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR IS TAKING NEW STEPS TO IMPROVE MINER SAFETY AND HEALTHUnder President Obama, The Department Of Labor Enacted Several Efforts To Improve Miner Safety And Health, Including Monthly Impact Inspections, The Pattern Of Violations Program, And Education And Outreach Within The Industry. “In a speech before attendees of the West Virginia Coal Association's 39th Annual Mining Symposium in Charleston today, Assistant Secretary of Labor Joseph A. Main discussed the current state of mine safety and health — and ongoing efforts to improve it — by both the U.S. Department of Labor's Mine Safety and Health Administration and the mining industry at large. Main highlighted a number of strategic initiatives that have been implemented which the agency believes have markedly improved miner safety and health, including monthly impact inspections, the pattern of violations program, and education and outreach within the industry. ‘I believe the actions we have taken at MSHA, along with those of the mining industry, are making a difference and making mines safer for the nation's miners,’ said Main. ‘Enhanced enforcement and regulatory and administrative changes, along with increased compliance and responsibility from the industry, have resulted in gains for the cause of miner safety.’” [Department of Labor, 2/2/12]AS GOVERNOR, ROMNEY CONDEMNED COAL-FIRED POWER PLANTS, CLAIMING THEY KILL PEOPLE…Bloomberg: “As Governor Of Massachusetts, Romney Once Vowed To Close A Coal Plant Because It ‘Kills People.’” [Bloomberg, 8/24/12]2003: Romney Vowed To Close An Aged Coal-Fired Power Plant Declaring “That Plant Kills People.” “Just after he took office, in 2003, he had attended a news conference at Salem Harbor, Mass., vowing to close an aged coal-fired power plant and declaring: ‘That plant kills people.’ His administration went to work on what would become the nation's first regulations on the emission of carbon dioxide, and helped launch negotiations on a Northeast regional compact to curb greenhouse-gas emissions.” [Wall Street Journal, 11/11/11]As Governor, Romney Said Massachusetts Was Under Siege From “Acid Rain And Air Pollution From The Midwest” And That It “Would Be Wrong, Even Hypocritical” Not To Pursue Upgrades To “Antiquated Coal Combustion Technologies.” “As he assailed a coal-powered plant in 2003 for failing to meet his state’s clean-air standards, then-Gov. Mitt Romney said Massachusetts was under siege from ‘acid rain and air pollution from the Midwest’ and that it ‘would be wrong, even hypocritical’ not to pursue upgrades to ‘antiquated coal combustion technologies.’” [Columbus Dispatch, 9/21/12]…AND CHAMPIONED HIS POWER PLANT REGULATIONS FOR MASSACHUSETTS AS “TOUGHEST IN THE NATION”Romney Described His New Mercury Rules As A Part Of Massachusetts’ “Toughest-In-The-Nation Clean Air Rules.” “Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, R, has set in motion new rules that he said would ‘significantly limit mercury emissions from the state's four coal-fired power plants as part of Massachusetts' toughest-in-the-nation clean air rules.’ The regulations codify a proposal he first made last September.” [Electric Utility Week, 6/07/04]2005: Romney Touted Massachusetts As “The First And Only State To Set CO2 Emissions Limits On Power Plants.”? “On Dec. 7, 2005, the Romney administration unveiled the final orders. ‘These carbon emission limits will provide real and immediate progress in the battle to improve our environment,’ then-Gov. Romney said in a press release touting Massachusetts as ‘the first and only state to set CO2 emissions limits on power plants.’” [Wall Street Journal, 10/6/11]ATTACKRomney Claimed A Coal-Fired Plant Killed PeopleONE:AS GOVERNOR, ROMNEY CONDEMNED COAL-FIRED POWER PLANTS, CLAIMING THEY KILL PEOPLE…Bloomberg: “As Governor Of Massachusetts, Romney Once Vowed To Close A Coal Plant Because It ‘Kills People.’” [Bloomberg, 8/24/12]2003: Romney Vowed To Close An Aged Coal-Fired Power Plant Declaring “That Plant Kills People.” “Just after he took office, in 2003, he had attended a news conference at Salem Harbor, Mass., vowing to close an aged coal-fired power plant and declaring: ‘That plant kills people.’ His administration went to work on what would become the nation's first regulations on the emission of carbon dioxide, and helped launch negotiations on a Northeast regional compact to curb greenhouse-gas emissions.” [Wall Street Journal, 11/11/11]As Governor, Romney Said Massachusetts Was Under Siege From “Acid Rain And Air Pollution From The Midwest” And That It “Would Be Wrong, Even Hypocritical” Not To Pursue Upgrades To “Antiquated Coal Combustion Technologies.” “As he assailed a coal-powered plant in 2003 for failing to meet his state’s clean-air standards, then-Gov. Mitt Romney said Massachusetts was under siege from ‘acid rain and air pollution from the Midwest’ and that it ‘would be wrong, even hypocritical’ not to pursue upgrades to ‘antiquated coal combustion technologies.’” [Columbus Dispatch, 9/21/12]…AND CHAMPIONED HIS POWER PLANT REGULATIONS FOR MASSACHUSETTS AS “TOUGHEST IN THE NATION”Romney Described His New Mercury Rules As A Part Of Massachusetts’ “Toughest-In-The-Nation Clean Air Rules.” “Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, R, has set in motion new rules that he said would ‘significantly limit mercury emissions from the state's four coal-fired power plants as part of Massachusetts' toughest-in-the-nation clean air rules.’ The regulations codify a proposal he first made last September.” [Electric Utility Week, 6/07/04]Romney’s Environmental Czar Ellen Roy Herzfelder Stated: “We Really Are First In The Nation To Create A Standard For Mercury In The Electricity Sector… It’s A Huge Step Forward In Bringing Clean Air To Massachusetts.” [Boston Globe, 5/26/04]2005: Romney Touted Massachusetts As “The First And Only State To Set CO2 Emissions Limits On Power Plants.”? “On Dec. 7, 2005, the Romney administration unveiled the final orders. ‘These carbon emission limits will provide real and immediate progress in the battle to improve our environment,’ then-Gov. Romney said in a press release touting Massachusetts as ‘the first and only state to set CO2 emissions limits on power plants.’” [Wall Street Journal, 10/6/11]TWO: AS GOVERNOR, ROMNEY CONDEMNED COAL-FIRED POWER PLANTS, CLAIMING THEY KILL PEOPLEBloomberg: “As Governor Of Massachusetts, Romney Once Vowed To Close A Coal Plant Because It ‘Kills People.’” [Bloomberg, 8/24/12]2003: Romney Vowed To Close An Aged Coal-Fired Power Plant Declaring “That Plant Kills People.” “Just after he took office, in 2003, he had attended a news conference at Salem Harbor, Mass., vowing to close an aged coal-fired power plant and declaring: ‘That plant kills people.’ His administration went to work on what would become the nation's first regulations on the emission of carbon dioxide, and helped launch negotiations on a Northeast regional compact to curb greenhouse-gas emissions.” [Wall Street Journal, 11/11/11]As Governor, Romney Said Massachusetts Was Under Siege From “Acid Rain And Air Pollution From The Midwest” And That It “Would Be Wrong, Even Hypocritical” Not To Pursue Upgrades To “Antiquated Coal Combustion Technologies.” “As he assailed a coal-powered plant in 2003 for failing to meet his state’s clean-air standards, then-Gov. Mitt Romney said Massachusetts was under siege from ‘acid rain and air pollution from the Midwest’ and that it ‘would be wrong, even hypocritical’ not to pursue upgrades to ‘antiquated coal combustion technologies.’” [Columbus Dispatch, 9/21/12]RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT, ROMNEY EMBRACES THE COAL INDUSTRY HE SAID “KILLS PEOPLE”Bloomberg Headline: “Romney Supportive Of Coal Industry He Said ‘Kills People.’” [Bloomberg, 8/22/12]Bloomberg: “Romney, Who As Massachusetts Governor Vowed To Close An Aging Coal-Fired Power Plant Because It ‘Kills People,’ Has Embraced The Coal Industry In His Presidential Bid, With [Bob] Murray Proving A Key Ally.” “Romney, who as Massachusetts governor vowed to close an aging coal-fired power plant because it ‘kills people,’ has embraced the coal industry in his presidential bid, with Murray proving a key ally. He touts coal development as central to his aim of achieving ‘North American energy independence’ at the end of a second term in office, a policy he is scheduled to discuss in detail today in New Mexico.” [Bloomberg, 8/22/12]Columbus Dispatch Headline: “Romney Pushes Coal In Ohio Despite Stance As Governor.” [Columbus Dispatch, 9/21/12]ROMNEY DENIED THE SALEM HARBOR PLANT IN MASSACHUSETTS A TWO-YEAR EXTENSION TO COME INTO COMPLIANCE WITH CLEAR-AIR GUIDELINES BUT EMISSIONS ARE HIGHER AT OHIO PLANTS ROMNEY ATTACKS PRESIDENT OBAMA OVERIn The Same 2003 Press Conference In Which Romney Claimed A Coal Plant “Kills People” Romney Said The Salem Harbor Coal Plant’s Extension To Comply With Massachusetts Clean-Air Guidelines Should Be Denied. “To detract from that narrative, the Obama campaign often points to Romney’s 2003 press conference outside the PG&E Salem Harbor plant at which he said ‘that plant kills people.’ During that same press conference – called so Romney could affirm his position that the Salem Harbor plant should not be given a two-year extension to comply with Massachusetts clean-air guidelines established in 2001 – Romney said some other things that if applied to this year’s presidential election could be construed as undermining his current attack against Obama.” [Columbus Dispatch, 9/21/12]Romney Denied A Compliance Deadline Extension For The Polluting Salem Harbor Plant In February 2003. “Governor Mitt Romney took his first major environmental stand yesterday by calling for the Salem Harbor Station power plant to meet a 2004 deadline to clean up its emissions. As several dozen plant workers tried to shout him down, the governor said the state Department of Environmental Protection has denied a bid by the oil-and-coal-fired plant, one of the dirtiest in the state, to win a two-year extension of its deadline to meet stricter clean-air standards.” [Boston Globe, 2/7/03]Advocating For Pollution Controls, Romney Attacked Midwestern Power Plants For Causing Air Pollution That “Infects Us Here In New England.” “At the time in 2003, Romney was standing up to one of Massachusetts’ ‘filthy five’ power plants for repeatedly seeking to skirt the state’s rules. Among his comments that day: ‘At a time when we’re still fighting acid rain and air pollution from the Midwest, which infects us here in New England, it would be wrong, even hypocritical to turn a blind eye to the antiquated coal combustion technologies still operating in the Bay State.’” [Columbus Dispatch, 9/21/12]Emissions From The Salem Harbor Plant That Romney Said “Kills People” Were Lower Than Many Of The Ohio Coal-Powered Plants That Are Now Choosing Not To Retool To Meet Federal Standards – And Romney Criticized President Obama For. “Ohio has 22 coal-powered plants and routinely ranks No. 1 in the nation for the amount of toxic air pollutants its industries emit each year, largely because of power plants that burn coal. Eight of those plants, owned by American Electric Power, Duke Energy, and FirstEnergy, were designated for contraction this year rather than for retooling to comply with federal clean-air rules.? The Romney campaign counts the expected job losses at those plants as casualties of Obama’s policies toward coal. But emissions from the Salem Harbor plant that ‘kills people’ were lower than many of the Ohio coal-powered plants that are now choosing not to retool to meet federal standards.” [Columbus Dispatch, 9/21/12]Romney Said High Energy Prices Were Here To StayROMNEY: OIL PRICES ARE SET ON A GLOBAL BASISRomney: Drilling For More Oil Will Encourage Gas Prices To Come Down “Although Oil Prices Are Set On A Global Basis.” Romney when asked what he could do to bring gas prices down: “The best thing we can do is to develop our own oil and gas resources here. We need to get gas for our long-haul truckers and for our commercial fleets in cities. And we also need to drill for more oil. That will encourage the prices to come down, although oil prices are set on a global basis as opposed to just to U.S. basis. But the development of oil and gas in this country is the best thing we can do to try and moderate the cost of those products.” [Chad Hartman Show, WCCO, 2/6/12]Romney Said The Cost Of Gas Would “Not Immediately” Come Down If He Won The Presidential Election. Romney when asked how quickly gas prices would come down if he won the presidential election: “Well, not immediately. You’ve got to actually drill, and get the product to market and get it out into the fleets, the long haul fleet and the commercial fleets to begin to have an impact.” [Chad Hartman Show, WCCO, 2/6/12]ROMNEY SAID HIGH ENERGY PRICES WOULD BE A “PERMANENT PHENOMENON”Romney’s Energy Bill Sought To Provide Incentives To Reduce Energy Consumption Saying “This High Cost Is Not A Temporary Phenomenon, But Has The Potential Of Being A Permanent Phenomenon.” “Romney's energy bill is expected to seek long-term financial incentives for state residents to reduce their consumption of electricity, fuel, and natural gas. That package is expected to come out next month. 'I think you'll see . . . that I will focus increasingly on finding permanent solutions to the high cost of energy, because we believe that this high cost is not a temporary phenomenon, but has the potential of being a permanent phenomenon,’ Romney said during a press conference held before the lawmakers'.” [Boston Globe, 9/23/05]2006: Romney: “I’m Very Much In Favor Of People Recognizing That These High Gasoline Prices Are Probably Here To Stay.” “When lieutenant governor Kerry Healey, a fellow Republican, called for suspending the state’s 23.5 cent gas tax during a price spike in May 2006, Romney rejected the idea, saying it would only further drive up gasoline consumption. ‘I don’t think that now is the time, and I’m not sure there will be the right time, for us to encourage the use of more gasoline,’ Romney said, according to the Quincy Patriot Ledger’s report at the time. ‘I’m very much in favor of people recognizing that these high gasoline prices are probably here to stay.’” [New Republic, 3/22/12]Headline: “When Romney Liked High Gas Prices” [New Republic, 3/22/12]ROMNEY: “WE’D BE BETTER OFF” WITH “EUROPEAN GAS PRICES”As Governor Of Massachusetts, Romney Claimed, “We’d Be A Lot Better Off In This Country If We Had European Gas Prices” Because Americans Would Buy More Fuel-Efficient Cars. “Decades later, when he was governor, Mr. Romney remarked to an adviser, Rob Gray, that ‘we’d be a lot better off in this country if we had European gas prices’ because Americans would buy more energy-efficient cars. He also invited Amory B. Lovins, the head of the Rocky Mountain Institute, a nonprofit research organization devoted to energy efficiency, to meet with him in Boston. While Mr. Lovins ‘shared his vision of a 75 m.p.g. hybrid automobile built with high strength steel and composites,’ Mr. Romney wrote, ‘I shared my own dream for a super-efficient commuter vehicle.’” [New York Times, 9/29/12]Romney Opposed Doubled Fuel Economy StandardsROMNEY DISAGREED WITH PRESIDENT OBAMA’S EFFORT TO NEARLY DOUBLE FUEL EFFICIENCY STANDARDS NBC’s Mike O’Brien Tweet: “Romney Spox Saul On The New CAFE Standards: ‘Governor Romney Opposes The Extreme Standards That President Obama Has Imposed…’”?[@mpoindc, Twitter,?8/28/12]Romney “Said He Would Reconsider” President Obama’s Effort To Nearly Double Fuel Efficiency Requirements By 2025 Despite Its Support From Most U.S. Automakers. “On another issue, Romney said he would reconsider what Obama has called one of his key domestic achievements: nearly doubling fuel-efficiency requirements to 54.5 mpg by 2025. The Obama administration won the support of most automakers — including Detroit's Big Three — for the 2017-2025 rules that will cost the industry $157.3 billion and add about $2,000 to the price of an average car. But it will save drivers $1.7 trillion at the pump.” [Detroit News, 6/5/12]Romney Attacked President Obama’s Fuel Economy Standards As “Extreme” Despite Industry Acceptance Of The New Goals. “Mr. Romney characterized the new mileage goals as ‘extreme,’ saying they would limit vehicle choices for consumers and drive up the cost of new cars. Automakers, however, are not eager to renegotiate the standards and are already adopting designs and technology to meet them.” [New York Times, 10/6/12]Romney Raised A Gas Tax By 400%ROMNEY RAISED A TAX ON GAS BY 400%, WHICH AFFECTED EVERY MOTORIST IN THE STATEHeadline: “As Governor, Mitt Romney Raised A Gas Tax By 400%” [BuzzFeed, 3/22/12]2003: Romney Pushed To Increase A Fee Paid By Massachusetts Motorists Meant To Remediate Leaking Fuel Tanks By 400 Percent – Generating $60 Million More Every Year. “A massive backlog of environmental cleanup claims is rising with no end in sight because of a Beacon Hill budget raid on a fee paid by Massachusetts motorists and meant to remediate leaking fuel tanks… The fee was initially a half-cent per gallon. But there wasn't enough money to pay for all the cleanups, so in 2003, then-Governor Mitt Romney pushed to increase the fee by another two cents, a 400 percent increase, that generated about $60 million more every year, nearly $80 million in annually.” [Fox Boston, 5/25/10]Member Of The Massachusetts Underground Storage Tank Fund Board: We Refer To Romney’s 400 Percent Fee Increase As “The Hidden Romney Gas Tax Increase.” Fox Boston reported on the 400 percent fee increase pushed by then-Governor Romney in 2003 on Massachusetts motorists meant to remediate leaking fuel tanks: “Ever since then, the tens of millions of dollars collected at the pumps goes directly into the general fund for lawmakers to spend however they please. ‘Seems like a back-door tax increase?’ Fox 25’s Beaudet asked. ‘Yes,’ [member of the Underground Storage Tank Fund board, Stephen] Dodge replied. ‘We refer to it, not to be political, but quite frankly we refer to it as the hidden Romney gas tax increase.’” [Fox Boston, 5/25/10]: Romney Raised Revenue To Close A Budget Shortfall By Increasing Fees And Closing Corporate Tax Loopholes – Among The Fees Raised Romney “Quintupled The Per Gallon Delivery Fee For Gasoline.” From a fact check of Restore Our Future Super PAC’s first TV ad and Romney claims: “There’s another misleading aspect to Romney’s claim that he closed the deficit without raising taxes. He increased government fees by hundreds of millions of dollars. As we wrote in 2007 when Romney was making his first presidential bid, Romney in 2003 doubled fees for court filings (which include marriage licensing fees), professional registrations and firearm licenses. Romney also quintupled the per gallon delivery fee for gasoline. All told, the fees raised more than $400 million in their first year. Romney also ‘closed loopholes’ in the corporate tax structure, a move that generated another $150 million in increased revenue.” [, 12/9/11]Romney’s Energy Plan Is Written By Big OilROMNEY’S ENERGY PLAN WAS WRITTEN BY BIG OIL, FOCUSES ON OIL DRILLING AND WOULD MAINTAIN SUBSIDIES FOR ROMNEY’S FRIENDS IN THE OIL INDUSTRY Romney’s Energy Plan “Is Basically All About Oil, Coal And Gas.” “No sooner had Mitt Romney released his long-awaited energy policy Aug. 23 than a small army of reporters and pundits started drilling into the details and coming up with barely a kilowatt of vision or substance. The plan is basically all about oil, coal and gas.” [K Kaufmann, Desert Sun, 9/1/12]A Romney Aide Revealed The Energy Plan Had Been Developed In Consultation With Oil And Gas Executives, Including Harold Hamm, Romney Advisor And Donor Who Owned Continental Resources Oil Company. “An individual close to the Romney campaign said that Mr. Romney’s staff drafted the proposal in consultation with industry executives, including Harold Hamm, an Oklahoma billionaire who is the chairman of the campaign’s energy advisory committee and chief executive of Continental Resources, an oil and gas driller.? Just this week, the oil and gas industry gave nearly $10 million toward the Romney election effort in two fund-raisers.? The Romney aide, who said she was not authorized to speak on the record about the plan, said that any consultation with industry officials was simply to tap their expertise and did not mean the proposal was being shaped to serve their interests.? Mr. Romney’s proposal drew immediate praise from the industry, which has complained that gas production on public lands has slowed under President Obama, even while it has surged on private lands.” [New York Times, 8/24/12]Huffington Post: Romney’s Energy “Plan Underlines The Fact That The Republican Party And The Oil, Gas And Coal Industries, Long In Agreement On Policy And Ideology, Have Grown Closer Than Ever Before” – And Romney’s “Top Energy Adviser Is The Wealthiest Oilman In The Country.” “Two days later, before a crowd wearing a mix of hardhats and cowboy hats in Hobbs, N.M., Romney unveiled his energy plan, which makes no mention of climate change and focuses on reaching energy independence by 2020 through increased extraction and use of oil, gas and coal, accompanied by reduced regulation for these industries. The plan underlines the fact that the Republican Party and the oil, gas and coal industries, long in agreement on policy and ideology, have grown closer than ever before. Romney, whose top energy adviser is the wealthiest oilman in the country, is on pace to raise more money from these industries than either George W. Bush or Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) did when he ran for president. The industries are also pumping millions into the new unlimited money vehicles, super PACs and dark money nonprofits, that are spending tens of millions of dollars per month to influence the election.” [Huffington Post, 8/24/12]Romney Would Keep $4 Billion A Year In Tax Incentives And Tax Breaks For Oil And Gas Drilling. Romney’s energy positions include: “Keep tax incentives and tax breaks for oil and gas drilling. These amount to about $4 billion a year.” [Washington Post, 9/11/12]ROMNEY CAN’T DRILL HIS WAY TO ENERGY INDEPENDENCEWashington Post: “Romney’s Plan Spends A Lot Of Time Talking About Drilling” But “Energy Independence Will Require More Than Just Drilling — It Will Also Depend On Efficiency Standards That Romney Has Opposed.” “Energy independence will require more than just drilling — it will also depend on efficiency standards that Romney has opposed. Mitt Romney’s plan spends a lot of time talking about drilling. But it’s worth noting that both the EIA and Citigroup credit the Obama administration’s new fuel-economy standards for cars and light trucks as a major part of America’s lurch toward energy independence. By 2025, the increased CAFE standards are expected to reduce U.S. oil consumption by about 2.2 million barrels per day. Without those rules, energy independence looks nearly impossible. And Romney, for his part, has pledged to overturn those fuel-economy rules.” [Wonk Blog, Washington Post, 8/23/12]Associated Press Fact Check: Romney Opposes Curbs On Energy Demand – Namely Higher Mileage Standard – But “Independent Energy Analysts Say Supply And Demand Both Have To Be In The Equation For Energy Independence To Be Achieved.” “Romney's steps include deficit cuts that he has not spelled out, and a march toward energy independence that past presidents have promised but not delivered. Unlike Obama, he does not support curbs on demand; namely the much higher mileage standards that are coming into effect. Romney proposes boosting supplies, with freer access to development of oil, gas, coal and more. Independent energy analysts say supply and demand both have to be in the equation for energy independence to be achieved.” [Fact Check, Associated Press, 8/31/12]New York Times’ Robert Semple, Jr.: American Energy Independence Would Depend On Alternatives And Efficiency, Neither Addressed In Romney’s Plan. “Let’s start first with the premise of the plan, which is also its promise: that energy independence is an achievable goal for America by 2020.? Presidents have been talking about energy independence since Richard Nixon and haven’t come close. The simple truth, as President Obama has recognized, is that a country that holds less than 3 percent of the world’s reserves but consumes more than 20 percent of the world’s supply cannot drill its way to energy independence. More production will help, but true independence from foreign imports – not to mention fewer greenhouses gases and a safer climate, a subject Mr. Romney never touches upon – will depend on developing alternative fuels and more efficient vehicles.” [Robert Semple, Jr. op-ed, New York Times, 8/24/12]Romney Would Cut Funding For RenewablesROMNEY WOULD CUT OFF FUNDING FOR RENEWABLE ENERGY WHICH HE DEEMED IMAGINARY ENERGY AND OPPOSES THE PRESIDENT’S INCREASED EFFICIENCY STANDARDSRomney Has The “View That The Government Should Cut Off Aid To Renewable Energy.” “Romney’s view that the government should cut off aid to renewable energy marks a reversal for the candidate.” [Washington Post, 6/8/12]Under Romney’s Energy Plan Renewable Energy And Energy-Efficiency Would Get The Short Shrift – Romney Zeros Out Federal Incentives For Solar, Wind Or Renewable Businesses. “Then there's the glaring absence of any mention of climate change or how much more carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases all that mining, transportation and fossil fuel-burning will cause, not to mention public health impact. Renewable energy and energy-efficiency also get short shrift from Romney. Any federal support would be limited to basic research — no incentives for solar, wind or other renewable businesses.” [K Kaufmann, Desert Sun, 9/1/12]TIME: “Romney Has Suggested That Wind And Solar Are ‘Imaginary’ Sources Of Energy, But They Can Now Power 15 Million Homes, And Their Industries Employ More Than 300,000 Americans. That’s Real.” “Before President Obama took office, the U.S. had 25 gigawatts of wind power, and the government’s ‘base case’ energy forecast expected 40 GW by 2030. Well, it’s not quite 2030 yet, but we’ve already got 50 GW of wind. We’ve also got about 5 GW of solar, which isn’t much, but is over six times more than we had before Obama. Mitt Romney has suggested that wind and solar are ‘imaginary’ sources of energy, but they can now power 15 million homes, and their industries employ more than 300,000 Americans. That’s real.” [Michael Grunwald, TIME, 8/10/12] The Hill Headline: “Romney Campaign: Let Wind Energy Credit Die This Year.” [The Hill, 7/30/12]NBC’s Mike O’Brien Tweet: “Romney Spox Saul On The New CAFE Standards: ‘Governor Romney Opposes The Extreme Standards That President Obama Has Imposed…’”?[@mpoindc, Twitter,?8/28/12]Romney Would Eliminate The Wind Production Tax CreditROMNEY WOULD ELIMINATE THE WIND PRODUCTION TAX CREDIT The Hill Headline: “Romney Campaign: Let Wind Energy Credit Die This Year.” [The Hill, 7/30/12]Politico: Romney’s Opposition To “Any Extension Of The Wind Production Tax Credit Derailed A Bipartisan Agreement In The Senate To Renew The Industry’s Crucial Tax Break.” “Mitt Romney’s announcement this week that he opposes any extension of the wind production tax credit derailed a bipartisan agreement in the Senate to renew the industry’s crucial tax break, sources said Wednesday. The wind PTC, which expires at the end of this year, was originally going to be included in the bipartisan deal that the Senate Finance Committee announced early Wednesday, senior Senate sources familiar with the negotiations told POLITICO.” [Politico, 8/1/12]TIME: “Romney Has Suggested That Wind And Solar Are ‘Imaginary’ Sources Of Energy, But They Can Now Power 15 Million Homes, And Their Industries Employ More Than 300,000 Americans. That’s Real.” “Before President Obama took office, the U.S. had 25 gigawatts of wind power, and the government’s ‘base case’ energy forecast expected 40 GW by 2030. Well, it’s not quite 2030 yet, but we’ve already got 50 GW of wind. We’ve also got about 5 GW of solar, which isn’t much, but is over six times more than we had before Obama. Mitt Romney has suggested that wind and solar are ‘imaginary’ sources of energy, but they can now power 15 million homes, and their industries employ more than 300,000 Americans. That’s real.” [Michael Grunwald, TIME, 8/10/12] ROMNEY’S STANCE ON WIND ENERGY WAS AT ODDS WITH MIDWESTERN REPUBLICANS Bloomberg Headline: “Romney Aversion To Wind-Power Aid Alienating Republicans.” [Bloomberg, 6/4/12]Iowa’s Governor Terry Branstad, And Its Entire Congressional Delegation Supported Extending The Federal Tax Credit For Wind Power. “Iowa’s Republican Governor Terry Branstad, both its senators and all five congressmen have endorsed extending the tax credit, according to AWEA.” [Bloomberg, 6/4/12]Rep. Steve King: “Now Is The Time For Stability In The Wind Industry.” “‘Now is the time for stability in the wind industry’ and the production tax credit offers that, Representative Steve King, an Iowa Republican, said April 25 on a conference call organized by AWEA.” [Bloomberg, 6/4/12]Rep. Tom Lathan: “I’m Disappointed That The Statement By Governor Romney’s Spokesperson Shows A Lack Of Full Understanding Of How Important The Wind Energy Tax Credit Is For Iowa And Our Nation.”? [Des Moines Register, 7/30/12]Rep. Tom Latham On Romney’s Position On Ending The Production Tax Credit For Wind Energy: “It’s The Wrong Decision.”? [Des Moines Register, 7/30/12]Rep. Tom Latham: “Nearly 7,000 Hardworking Iowans Are Employed By Over 250 Businesses Associated With The Wind Energy Industry In Our State, Making Iowa The Top State In Wind Energy Employment.” [Des Moines Register, 7/30/12]Rep. Tom Latham: “A Continuation Of The Wind Energy Tax Credit Is In The Best Interest Of Our Nation’s All-Of-The-Above Energy Policy For American Energy Independence And For Our Economy.? I Invite Governor Romney To Step Forward And Re-Evaluate The Statement Issued By His Campaign Spokesman.” [Des Moines Register, 7/30/12]Senators Bennett And Udall Were Concerned The Loss Of The Production Tax Credit Would Cost Colorado 6,000 Jobs. “Federal lawmakers warn that states stand to lose wind industry jobs if Congress fails to pass legislation to extend the federal tax break for wind energy producers, known as the production tax credit, which is due to expire at the end of this year. ‘We're just not doing our job,' Sen. Michael Bennet, D-Colo., said. ‘We need to get after it.’ Bennet and fellow Colorado Democratic Sen. Mark Udall are both concerned that their state alone could lose 6,000 jobs.” [Fox News, 5/1/12]Extending The Energy Production Tax Credit Had The Support Of 20 Republicans Co-Sponsors And Was “Supported By The U.S. Chamber Of Commerce, The National Association Of Manufacturers And More Than 400 Turbine-Component Makers, Developers And Trade Groups.” “[Congressman Roscoe] Bartlett is co-sponsoring The American Renewable-Energy Production Tax Extension Credit Act of 2011, which would extend through 2016 the 2.2-cent-a-kilowatt-hour credit for electricity produced by wind turbines, biomass, geothermal and landfill-gas plants. The issue will intensify this week as executives gather in Atlanta for the Windpower 2012 annual conference. The act was introduced in November and has 101 co-sponsors including more than 20 Republicans from states such as Texas, Illinois and Oklahoma. It’s supported by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers and more than 400 turbine-component makers, developers and trade groups, according to the American Wind Energy Association, which also endorsed the bill.” [Bloomberg, 6/4/12]ENTITLEMENTSPRO-POTUSThe Affordable Care Act Extends Medicare Solvency And Strengthens BenefitsTHE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT EXTENDS THE SOLVENCY OF MEDICARE PART A TO 2024, CUTS WASTE AND FRAUD IN MEDICARE, AND STRENGTHEN BENEFITS FOR SENIORSAARP:? The Affordable Care Act “Protects And Strengthens Guaranteed Benefits In Medicare.”? “The legislative package [the Affordable Care Act] cracks down on insurance company abuses and protects and strengthens guaranteed benefits in Medicare, the program millions of our members depend on and in which millions more will soon enroll. It closes the dreaded Medicare Part D ‘doughnut hole,’ a gap in prescription drug coverage that is life-threatening for many. … And it improves efforts to crack down on fraud and waste in Medicare, strengthening the program for today’s seniors and future generations.” [AARP Press Release, 3/10/12]Cleveland Plain Dealer Politifact Has Rated The Assertion That The Affordable Care Act Cuts Medicare False. “The NRSC’s claim cites a real figure -- $500 billion -- that is part of the health reform debate. But it incorrectly describes it as $500 billion in Medicare cuts, rather than as decreases in the rate of growth of future spending.And the NRSC piles on the incorrect talking point about "government-run health care. On the Truth-Meter, the NRSC’s claim rates as False.” [Cleveland Plain Dealer, Politifact, 06/09/11]The Affordable Care Act Extends The Solvency Of Medicare Part A To 2024, Eight Years Longer Than Without Health Care Reform. “The Medicare Trustees Report released today shows that the Hospital Insurance (HI) Trust Fund is expected to remain solvent until 2024, the same as last year’s estimate, but action is needed to secure its long-term future.? In 2011, the HI Trust Fund expenditures were lower than expected. Without the Affordable Care Act, the HI Trust Fund would expire 8 years earlier, in 2016. ”[Center For Medicare & Medicaid Services, 04/23/12]ABC News Fact Check: Spending Will Be Reduced By Getting Rid of Fraud and Ending Overpayment To Private Insurance Companies.” “Medicare spending will continue to grow, according to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), but ACA will slow that growth….spending will be reduced by getting rid of fraud and ending overpayments to private insurance companies. It sends a message to those insurance companies: Operate more efficiently.”? [ABC News, 6/28/12]The Affordable Care Act Closes The Prescription Drug Coverage Gap—The “Doughnut Hole”—In Medicare Part D By 2020. “The Affordable Care Act includes benefits to make your Medicare prescription drug coverage (Part D) more affordable. It does this by gradually closing the gap in drug coverage known as the ‘Donut Hole.’...the gap is closed in 2020.” [, 08/03/11]In The First 8 Months Of 2012 Alone, Medicare Beneficiaries In The Doughnut Hole Saved On Average Over $641 On Their Prescription Drugs. “Seniors in the Medicare prescription drug coverage gap known as the donut hole have saved an average of $641 in the first eight months of 2012 alone.”?[Department of Health and Human Services, Press Release, 9/21/12]President Obama Has Called For A Bipartisan Solution To Strengthen Social SecurityPRESIDENT OBAMA OUTLINED SIX PRINCIPLES FOR SOCIAL SECURITY REFORM AND HAS CALLED FOR A BIPARTISAN SOLUTION TO STRENGTHEN SOCIAL SECURITYPresident Obama Outlined Six Principles For Social Security Reform, Including Opposing Any Efforts To Privatize Or Weaken Social Security, To Slash Benefits For Future Generations, Or To Reduce Basic Benefits For Current Recipients.? “The President is committed to making sure that Social Security is solvent and viable for the American people, now and in the future. He is strongly opposed to privatizing Social Security and looks forward to working in a bipartisan way to strengthen Social Security for years to come. Guiding the Administration in these talks will be the President’s six principles for reform: any reform should strengthen Social Security for future generations and restore long-term solvency; the Administration will oppose any measures to privatize or weaken the Social Security system; while all measures to strengthen solvency should be on the table, the Administration will not accept an approach that slashes benefits for future generations; no current beneficiaries should see their basic benefits reduced; reform should strengthen retirement security for the most vulnerable, including low-income seniors; reform should maintain robust disability and survivors’ benefits.” [White House Fact Sheet, February 2012]President Obama: We Need To “Find A Bipartisan Solution To Strengthen Social Security For Future Generations.” "To put us on solid ground, we should also find a bipartisan solution to strengthen Social Security for future generations. We must do it without putting at risk current retirees, the most vulnerable, or people with disabilities; without slashing benefits for future generations; and without subjecting Americans’ guaranteed retirement income to the whims of the stock market." [Remarks by the President at the State Of The Union, 01/25/11]President Obama: We Have To Keep The Promise “To Safeguard Social Security For Our Seniors, People With Disabilities, And All Americans Today, Tomorrow, And Forever.” “We have an obligation to keep that promise; to safeguard Social Security for our seniors, people with disabilities, and all Americans -- today, tomorrow, and forever.” [Remarks by the President at a Weekly Address, 8/14/10]THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION HAS HELPED STRENGTHEN SOCIAL SECURITY AND INCREASE BENEFITS FOR SENIORSThe Obama Administration Pushed Congress To Provide $13 Billion In One-Time Checks To 57 Million Social Security Recipients During The Recession. “President Obama urged Congress on Wednesday to authorize a second $250 stimulus check to be sent early next year to an estimated 57 million Social Security recipients, veterans and people with disabilities. … White House officials put the cost of the checks at $13 billion. The first $250 checks went out in May as part of the $787 billion two-year stimulus package. As with that package, the officials said Mr. Obama would not ask Congress to offset the cost with other savings because the checks were intended to stimulate the economy, and budget cuts or tax increases would defeat that. [New York Times, 10/14/09]President Obama Continues To Push For Another $250 Economic Recovery Payment For Retirees. “In light of continued economic hardship for too many seniors, the President has called for Congress to enact another $250 Economic Recovery Payment to our seniors this year, as well as to veterans and people with disabilities.” [White House, Accessed 8/11/12]Obama Administration Increased Benefits For Social Security Beneficiaries for 2012. “Monthly Social Security and Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits for more than 60 million Americans will increase 3.6 percent in 2012, the Social Security Administration announced today.” [Social Security Administration, 10/19/11]EXPERTS AGREE THAT SOCIAL SECURITY IS NOT IN IMMEDIATE CRISISAARP: “Social Security Is Not In Crisis.” “The Social Security Trustees reaffirm that the program can pay full benefits until 2033, and roughly three-quarters of promised benefits beyond that time ... While Social Security is not in crisis, it will require modest changes to ensure current and future generations will receive the benefits they've earned." [AARP press release, 4/23/12]National Senior Citizen Law Center: “Social Security Faces No Imminent Crisis.”. Although the deficit increased to 2.67% from 2.22% last year, CRR director Alicia Munnell points out that the shortfall “has been around 2% of taxable payroll since the early 1990s… Social Security faces no imminent crisis [Naional Senior Citizen Law Center, 5/8/12] Pushback: President Obama Cut Medicare To Pay For ObamacareFACT CHECKERS HAVE DEBUNKED THE CLAIM THAT PRESIDENT OBAMA “FUNNELS” MONEY FROM MEDICARE TO THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACTTampa Bay Times Politifact: “Mitt Romney Said Barack Obama Robs Medicare Of More Than $700 Billion To Pay For Obamacare.”—“We Rate This Statement Mostly False.” “The claim that Obama cut $700 billion out of Medicare is relatively new. Not long ago, the oft-cited number was $500 billion….The only element of truth here is that the health care law seeks to reduce future Medicare spending, and the tally of those cost reductions over the next 10 years is $716 billion. The money wasn’t ‘robbed,’ however, and other presidents have made similar reductions to the Medicare program.? We rate this statement Mostly False.” [Tampa Bay Times, Politifact, 8/12/12]:Ryan’s Claim That Money Is “Funneled” From Medicare To The Affordable Care Act Is A “False Line Of Attack.” “Ryan continued the campaign’s false line of attack that Obama had ‘funneled’ money out of Medicare to pay for the federal health care law “at the expense of the elderly.” But that’s contradicted by Medicare’s chief actuary, in a statement at the end of the?most recent report of the system’s trustees?(our emphasis added):?Medicare Actuary, April 23, 2012: [Obama's] Affordable Care Act makes important changes to the Medicare program and substantially improves its financial outlook …Medicare’s money?isn’t being taken away.” [, 8/30/12]Bloomberg: The Claim That President Obama Takes Money From Medicare To Put Into Obamacare Is “Flat-Out Wrong.” “To hear Paul Ryan’s speech at the Republican convention Wednesday night, you’d think President Obama was robbing from the elderly. ‘The greatest threat to Medicare is Obamacare, and we’re going to stop it,’ Ryan told the crowd. ‘…they just took it all away from Medicare. Seven hundred and sixteen billion dollars, funneled out of Medicare by President Obama.’ The Romney campaign has been making this argument a lot lately….The problem is, the claim is flat-out wrong. ‘The Affordable Care Act doesn’t steal anything from Medicare,’ Henry Aaron, a health-care expert at the Brookings Institution, tells me. ‘It actually improves Medicare’s finances. No matter how you slice it, the Affordable Care Act strengthens medical hospital insurance.’” [Bloomberg, 8/30/12]Bloomberg Headline: “Hey Paul Ryan, Obamacare Doesn’t Steal From Medicare.”President Obama Did Not Cut $716 Billion From MedicareROMNEY’S MEDICARE CLAIMS ARE FALSE: THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT EXTENDS MEDICARE SOLVENCY AND STRENGTHENS BENEFITS BY CUTTING WASTE AND ELIMINATING NEEDLESS PAYMENTS TO INSURANCE COMPANIESFACT CHECKERS AND NEWS OUTLETS AGREE: THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT DOES NOT CUT MEDICARE, AND THE AARP HAS SAID THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT STRENGTHENS MEDICAREAARP:? The Affordable Care Act “Protects And Strengthens Guaranteed Benefits In Medicare.”? “The legislative package [the Affordable Care Act] cracks down on insurance company abuses and protects and strengthens guaranteed benefits in Medicare, the program millions of our members depend on and in which millions more will soon enroll. It closes the dreaded Medicare Part D ‘doughnut hole,’ a gap in prescription drug coverage that is life-threatening for many. … And it improves efforts to crack down on fraud and waste in Medicare, strengthening the program for today’s seniors and future generations.” [AARP Press Release, 3/10/12]Cleveland Plain Dealer Politifact Has Rated The Assertion That The Affordable Care Act Cuts Medicare False. “The NRSC’s claim cites a real figure -- $500 billion -- that is part of the health reform debate. But it incorrectly describes it as $500 billion in Medicare cuts, rather than as decreases in the rate of growth of future spending.And the NRSC piles on the incorrect talking point about "government-run health care. On the Truth-Meter, the NRSC’s claim rates as False.” [Cleveland Plain Dealer, Politifact, 06/09/11]New York Times Editorial Board: “Republican Attacks On President Obama’s Plans For Medicare Are Growing More Heated And Inaccurate By The Day.” “Republican attacks on President Obama’s plans for Medicare are growing more heated and inaccurate by the day. Both Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan made statements last week implying that the Affordable Care Act would eviscerate Medicare when in fact the law should shore up the program’s finances.? Both men have also twisted themselves into knots to distance themselves from previous positions, so that voters can no longer believe anything they say.”.” [Editorial, New York Times, 8/18/12]New York Times Editorial Board: “$716 Billion Is Not A ‘Cut’ In Benefits But Rather The Savings In Costs That The Congressional Budget Office Projects Over The Next Decade From Wholly Reasonable Provisions In The Reform Law.” ?“A Republican attack ad says that the reform law has “cut” $716 billion from Medicare, with the money used to expand coverage to low-income people who are currently uninsured….In reality, the $716 billion is not a ‘cut’ in benefits but rather the savings in costs that the Congressional Budget Office projects over the next decade from wholly reasonable provisions in the reform law.”? [Editorial, New York Times, 8/18/12]THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT EXTENDS THE SOLVENCY OF MEDICARE TO 2024 The Affordable Care Act Extends The Solvency Of Medicare Part A To 2024, Eight Years Longer Than Without Health Care Reform. “The Medicare Trustees Report released today shows that the Hospital Insurance (HI) Trust Fund is expected to remain solvent until 2024, the same as last year’s estimate, but action is needed to secure its long-term future.? In 2011, the HI Trust Fund expenditures were lower than expected. Without the Affordable Care Act, the HI Trust Fund would expire 8 years earlier, in 2016. ”[Center For Medicare & Medicaid Services, 04/23/12]New York Times Editorial Board: “The Affordable Care Act Helped Push Back The Insolvency Date By Eight Years, So Repealing The Act Would Actually Bring The Trust Fund Closer To Insolvency.” “The Republicans also argue that the reform law will weaken Medicare and that by preventing the cuts and ultimately turning to vouchers they will enhance the program’s solvency. But Medicare is not in danger of going ‘bankrupt’; the issue is whether the trust fund that pays hospital bills will run out of money in 2024, as now projected, and require the program to live on the annual payroll tax revenues it receives. The Affordable Care Act helped push back the insolvency date by eight years, so repealing the act would actually bring the trust fund closer to insolvency, perhaps in 2016.” [Editorial, New York Times, 8/18/12]THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT CUTS WASTE, FRAUD AND ABUSE IN MEDICARE WHILE PROTECTING BENEFITS FOR MEDICARE RECIPIENTSABC News: “In Reality, The Affordable Care Act Did Not Alter Existing Medicare Benefits As Guaranteed By Law But Instead Trimmed Payments To Service Providers While Reducing Waste, Fraud And Abuse.” “Ryan said Wednesday that $716 billion were “funneled out of Medicare by President Obama,” suggesting the administration had raided the program at the expense of beneficiaries. In reality, the Affordable Care Act did not alter existing Medicare benefits as guaranteed by law but instead?trimmed payments?to service providers while reducing waste, fraud and abuse, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation.? Ryan also didn’t mention that he?proposed the same $716 billion in Medicare savings?in his signature budget.” [ABC News, 8/30/12]New York Times Editorial: The Affordable Care Act Savings Go Toward “Popular Benefits To Retirees.” “Ryan tried to frighten beneficiaries that evening by denouncing Mr. Obama for cutting $716 billion out of Medicare to pay for health care reform. He didn’t say that the money would come out of hospitals and insurance companies, not benefits, and that he proposed exactly the same cut. He didn’t say that reform provides popular benefits to retirees, like the end of the prescription doughnut hole and improved preventive care.” [New York Times Editorial, 8/30/12]THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT PROVIDES SAVINGS FOR SENIORS, INCLUDING BY CLOSING THE DOUGHNUT HOLE IN MEDICARE PART D BY 2020, AND HAS ALREADY REDUCED THE COST OF PRESCRIPTION DRUGS FOR MILLIONS OF MEDICARE RECIPIENTS Because Of The Affordable Care Act, Americans With Medicare Will Save $5,000 Through 2022. “Because of the health care law – the Affordable Care Act – the average person with traditional Medicare will save $5,000 from 2010 to 2022, according to a report today from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.” [Department of Health and Human Services, Press Release, 9/21/12]The Affordable Care Act Closes The Prescription Drug Coverage Gap—The “Doughnut Hole”—In Medicare Part D By 2020. “The Affordable Care Act includes benefits to make your Medicare prescription drug coverage (Part D) more affordable. It does this by gradually closing the gap in drug coverage known as the ‘Donut Hole.’...the gap is closed in 2020.” [, 08/03/11]Because Of the Affordable Care Act, More Than 5.5 Million Seniors And People With Disabilities Have Saved Over $4.5 Billion On Prescription Drug Costs Since The Law Was Enacted. “HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius also announced that, because of the health care law, more than 5.5 million seniors and people with disabilities saved nearly $4.5 billion on prescription drugs since the law was enacted.” ?[Department of Health and Human Services, Press Release, 9/21/12]In The First 8 Months Of 2012 Alone, Medicare Beneficiaries In The Doughnut Hole Saved On Average Over $641 On Their Prescription Drugs. “Seniors in the Medicare prescription drug coverage gap known as the donut hole have saved an average of $641 in the first eight months of 2012 alone.”?[Department of Health and Human Services, Press Release, 9/21/12]THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT HAS ALREADY PROVIDED AN ESTIMATED 32.5 MILLION AMERICANS IN MEDICARE AND MEDICARE ADVANTAGE WITH PREVENTIVE HEALTH CARE BENEFITSCombined With Seniors Enrolled In Medicare Advantage Plans, An Estimated 32.5 Million Medicare Beneficiaries Benefited From Medicare’s Coverage Of Prevention With No Cost Sharing. “This report details how over 25.7 million Americans in traditional Medicare received free preventive services in 2011.??In Medicare Advantage, last year 9.3 million Americans – 97 percent of those in individual Medicare Advantage plans – were enrolled in a plan that offers free preventive services. Assuming that Medicare Advantage beneficiaries utilized preventive services at the same rate as beneficiaries in traditional Medicare, an estimated 32.5 million beneficiaries benefited from Medicare’s coverage of prevention with no cost sharing.” [Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services, 02/2012]Under The Affordable Care Act, At Least 25.7 Million Americans In Traditional Medicare Received At Least One Free Preventive Benefit In 2011, Including The New Annual Wellness Visit. “According to preliminary numbers, at least 25,720,996 million Americans took advantage of at least one free preventive benefit in Medicare in 2011, including the new Annual Wellness Visit. This represents 73.3% of Medicare fee-for-service (FFS) beneficiaries.” [Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services, 02/2012]President Obama Is Committed To Protecting Medicare And Social Security While Reducing The DeficitPRESIDENT OBAMA IS COMMITTED TO PROTECTING SOCIAL SECURITY AND MEDICARE BENEFITS FOR AMERICAN SENIORSPRESIDENT OBAMA IS COMMITTED TO PROTECTING THE INTEGRITY OF SOCIAL SECURITY AND MEDICARE IN ANY REFORMPresident Obama Said Meaningful Changes Must Preserve The Integrity Of Medicare, Ensuring The Program Is There For This And The Next Generation “And it is possible for us to construct a package that would be balanced, would share sacrifice, would involve both parties taking on their sacred cows, would involved some meaningful changes to Medicare, Social Security, and Medicaid that would preserve the integrity of the programs and keep our sacred trust with our seniors, but make sure those programs were there for not just this generation but for the next generation; that it is possible for us to bring in revenues in a way that does not impede our current recovery, but is fair and balanced.” [Remarks By President Obama, 7/11/11]President Obama: We Have To Keep The Promise “To Safeguard Social Security For Our Seniors, People With Disabilities, And All Americans Today, Tomorrow, And Forever.” “We have an obligation to keep that promise; to safeguard Social Security for our seniors, people with disabilities, and all Americans -- today, tomorrow, and forever.” [Remarks by the President at a Weekly Address, 8/14/10]PRESIDENT OBAMA OUTLINED SIX PRINCIPLES FOR SOCIAL SECURITY REFORM AND HAS CALLED FOR A BIPARTISAN SOLUTION TO STRENGTHEN SOCIAL SECURITYPresident Obama Outlined Six Principles For Social Security Reform, Including Opposing Any Efforts To Privatize Or Weaken Social Security, To Slash Benefits For Future Generations, Or To Reduce Basic Benefits For Current Recipients.? “The President is committed to making sure that Social Security is solvent and viable for the American people, now and in the future. He is strongly opposed to privatizing Social Security and looks forward to working in a bipartisan way to strengthen Social Security for years to come. Guiding the Administration in these talks will be the President’s six principles for reform: any reform should strengthen Social Security for future generations and restore long-term solvency; the Administration will oppose any measures to privatize or weaken the Social Security system; while all measures to strengthen solvency should be on the table, the Administration will not accept an approach that slashes benefits for future generations; no current beneficiaries should see their basic benefits reduced; reform should strengthen retirement security for the most vulnerable, including low-income seniors; reform should maintain robust disability and survivors’ benefits.” [White House Fact Sheet, February 2012]President Obama: We Need To “Find A Bipartisan Solution To Strengthen Social Security For Future Generations.” "To put us on solid ground, we should also find a bipartisan solution to strengthen Social Security for future generations. We must do it without putting at risk current retirees, the most vulnerable, or people with disabilities; without slashing benefits for future generations; and without subjecting Americans’ guaranteed retirement income to the whims of the stock market." [Remarks by the President at the State Of The Union, 01/25/11]THE PRESIDENT REFUSES TO SLASH BENEFITS FOR CURRENT AND FUTURE SENIORS OR PRIVATIZE SOCIAL SECURITY AND SUBJECT IT TO THE WHIMS OF WALL STREET President Obama: “And We Will Keep The Promise Of Social Security By Taking The Responsible Steps To Strengthen It, Not By Turning It Over To Wall Street.” [Remarks By The President At The Democratic National Convention, 9/6/12]Center On Budget And Policy Priorities: One Striking Feature Of The Obama Budget Is The Degree To Which Federal Spending Outside Social Security, Medicare, And Medicaid Would?Fall?As A Share Of GDP. “Indeed, the composition of the deficit reduction under the Obama budget is actually to the conservative side of the Bowles-Simpson plan — it raises significantly less in revenues and reduces security spending much less than Bowles-Simpson would. One striking feature of the Obama budget is the degree to which federal spending outside Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid would?fall?as a share of GDP. Non-security discretionary spending would fall from 3.1% of GDP in 2011 to 1.7% in 2021 and 2022, the lowest level on record with data back to 1962. Spending for mandatory programs other than Social Security and Medicare — a budget category that?includes the Medicaid program and the costs of the health reform law — would decline from 6% of GDP in 2011 to 5.5% in 2022. Entitlement and mandatory programs other than Social Security, Medicare,?and?Medicaid would fall from 4.2% of GDP in 2011 to 3.2% in 2022.” [Center On Budget And Policy Priorities, 2/16/12]THE CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE ESTIMATES THAT THE SOCIAL SECURITY TRUST FUND WILL BE ABLE TO PAY OUT FULL BENEFITS UNTIL 2038The OASI Trust Fund Will Be Able To Pay Out Full Benefits Until 2038. “CBO projects that under current law, the DI trust fund will be exhausted in fiscal year 2016 and the OASI trust fund will be exhausted in 2038. If a trust fund’s balance falls to zero and current revenues are insufficient to cover the benefits that are specified in law, the Social Security Administration does not have legal authority to pay full benefits when they are due.” [Congressional Budget Office, 10/2/12]Resources Available To The Social Security Fund Will Be Sufficient For Roughly The Next 20 Years. “Over the next 10 years, outlays will exceed dedicated tax revenues by about 10 percent, on average. That gap will grow larger in the 2020s, and by 2030, Social Security outlays will be about 6 percent of gross domestic product and will exceed dedicated tax revenues by about 20 percent. As a result, under current law, resources available to the Social Security program will become insufficient to pay full benefits in about 20 years, CBO projects.”?[Congressional Budget Office, Blog, 10/2/12]EXPERTS AGREE THAT SOCIAL SECURITY IS NOT IN IMMEDIATE CRISISAARP: “Social Security Is Not In Crisis.” “The Social Security Trustees reaffirm that the program can pay full benefits until 2033, and roughly three-quarters of promised benefits beyond that time ... While Social Security is not in crisis, it will require modest changes to ensure current and future generations will receive the benefits they've earned." [AARP press release, 4/23/12]National Senior Citizen Law Center: “Social Security Faces No Imminent Crisis.”—Social Security Is Not In Crisis. Although the deficit increased to 2.67% from 2.22% last year, CRR director Alicia Munnell points out that the shortfall “has been around 2% of taxable payroll since the early 1990s… Social Security faces no imminent crisis [Naional Senior Citizen Law Center, 5/8/12] Politifact Rates The Statement That The Social Security Trust Fund Is Facing Imminent Bankruptcy As “Mostly False.” “The program is not out of money or unable to pay benefits. At the current pace, according to federal projections, scheduled benefits should continue to be paid in full for about 25 years. The sky may be darkening, but it is not falling. On the Truth-O-Meter, Boehner's statement is Mostly False.” [Cleveland Plain Dealer, Politifact, 1/3/12]Pushback: Doctors Will Stop Serving Medicare PatientsDOCTORS WILL CONTINUE TO CARE FOR MEDICARE BENEFICIARIES, AND THE MAJORITY ARE SUPPORTIVE OF THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT AND ITS PAYMENT INNOVATIONSRECENT SURVEYS INDICATE DOCTORS CONTINUE TO SEE MEDICARE PATIENTS AND THE VAST MAJORITY HAVE NOT CHANGED THEIR PRACTICES AS A RESULT OF THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT Physicians Practice: An “Overwhelming Majority Of Practices Plan To Keep Accepting Medicare Patients.” “Despite the Affordable Care Act and possible pay cuts due to the Medicare Sustainable Growth Rate formula, an overwhelming majority of practices plan to keep accepting Medicare patients.” [Great American Physician Survey, 9/4/12]Only 3.6 Percent Of Physicians Reported That They “No Longer Take Medicare Patients”As A Result Of The Affordable Care Act. 65.2 percent said they have done ‘nothing.’ 15.4 percent said they ‘hired more nurse practitioners and physician assistants.’ 13.9 percent said they ‘joined/planning to join an accountable care organization.’ 4.8 percent said ‘hired more physicians.’ And only 3.6 percent said they ‘no longer take Medicare patients” as a result of the law.’” [Great American Physician Survey, 9/4/12]New York Times: = Well Over 90 Percent Of Doctors Still Take New Take Medicare Patients.?“Dr. Bishop and two colleagues tried to answer the question by analyzing data from a National Center for Health Statistics survey of 4,112 physicians practicing in private, nonhospital offices and accepting new patients from 2005 to 2008. They’ve just published their findings in the Archives of Internal Medicine. ‘There was a small decline in Medicare acceptance, but it wasn’t very dramatic,’ Dr. Bishop told me in an interview. ‘Well over 90 percent of doctors, in all kinds of specialties, still take new Medicare patients.’” [New York Times, New Old Age Blog,?7/6/11]In A Recent Health Affairs Study Of 4,326 Physicians, Over 80 Percent Reported Accepting New Medicare Patients. [Health Affairs, August 2012 as cited in Forbes 8/7/12] MANY PHYSICIANS ARE OR ARE PLANNING TO PARTICIPATE IN INNOVATIVE PAYMENT MODELS LAUNCHED BY THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACTIn One Survey, Nearly 10 Percent Of Doctors Report Either Participating Or Planning to Participate In Accountable Care Organizations. 3 percent reported “Accountable Care Organization (ACO) participation” and 5 percent reported “not in an ACO now but plan to be in the coming year.” [Medscape Physician Compensation Report, February 2012]In A Larger Survey Of Physicians, 22 Percent Reported Being “In ACO Talks.” [National Physician Survey, 2012]In 2012, Physician Participation In ACOs Increased Dramatically—Over Ten Percentage Points—As Well As Physician Familiarity With ACOs. “In last year’s survey, only 12% of the responding physicians indicated they were actively in discussions to form an ACO. In fact, no physician category or specialty had more than 17% of respondents that said “yes”.? This year, that number has increased to 22% – quite a signi?cant change.? (We can corroborate this with our physician data from the little blue book; this year saw a solid increase in large practices of 21+ physicians, and a decrease in solo practice numbers.) 45% of last year’s respondents to this question were not familiar with ACOs.? That has changed signi?cantly, with only 17% of respondents not being familiar with the terminology or concept of an ACO.” [National Physician Survey, 2012]Pushback: The IPAB Is An Unaccountable Board That Will Ration CareTHE INDEPENDENT PAYMENT ADVISORY BOARD IS FORBIDDEN BY LAW TO RECOMMEND CHANGES THAT WILL RATION CARE AND IS ACCOUNTABLE TO BOTH CONGRESS AND THE PRESIDENT THE INDEPENDENT PAYMENT ADVISORY BOARD CANNOT RATION CARE, AND ITS ACTIONS ARE SUBJECT TO CONGRESSIONAL APPROVAL Tampa Bay Times Politifact Rated Romney’s Claim In The First Presidential Debate That Obama “Put In Place A Board That Can Tell People Ultimately What Treatments They’re Going To Receive” “Mostly False.” “The health care law directs a new national board — with 15 members who are political appointees — to identify Medicare savings. It's forbidden from submitting ‘any recommendation to ration health care,’ as Section 3403 of the health care law states. It may not raise premiums for Medicare beneficiaries or increase deductibles, coinsurance or co-payments. The IPAB also cannot change who is eligible for Medicare, restrict benefits or make recommendations that would raise revenue. What it can do is reduce how much the government pays health care providers for services, reduce payments to hospitals with very high rates of re-admissions or recommend innovations that cut wasteful spending. Some argue that because the IPAB can reduce the money a doctor receives, this could lead to an indirect form of rationing. But the board wouldn't make any health care decisions for individual Americans. Instead, as PolitiFact Georgia reported, it would make broad policy decisions that affect Medicare's overall cost.” [Tampa Bay Times Politifact, 10/3/12]Cleveland Plain Dealer Politifact: The Claim That An Independent Payment Advisory Board “’Can Ration Care And Deny Certain Medicare Treatments’ Isn’t Just Wrong. It’s Also Ridiculous” And Is Rated “Pants On Fire.” “His claim that IPAB ‘can ration care and deny certain Medicare treatments’ isn’t just wrong. It’s also ridiculous. To that we can say ‘Ain’t That a Shame.’On the Truth-O-Meter, the claim rates Pants on Fire.” [Cleveland Plain Dealer, Politifact, 03/19/12]: Obamacare Explicitly Says The Independent Payment Advisory Board’s Proposals Cannot Make Recommendations That Ration Care. “The law also explicitly says that the IPAB’s proposals ‘shall not include any recommendation to ration health care, raise revenues or Medicare beneficiary premiums … increase Medicare beneficiary cost sharing (including deductibles, coinsurance, and copayments), or otherwise restrict benefits or modify eligibility criteria.’” [, 11/17/11]The Independent Payment Advisory Board Cannot Ration Care, And Its Proposals Are Subject To Congressional Approval. “Mr. Obama’s health care law does set up a board to try to control health costs, but as noted, it is explicitly not allowed to ration care and its proposals must be approved by Congress.??The board, called the Independent Payment Advisory Board, is charged with finding ways to reduce the growth in spending. The?law states?that its ‘proposal shall not include any recommendation to ration health care, raise revenues or Medicare beneficiary premiums.’” [New York Times, 6/19/12]THE INDEPENDENT PAYMENT ADVISORY BOARD IS A “PROMISING” STRATEGY BACKED BY HEALTH POLICY ECONOMISTS TO HELP CONTROL MEDICARE COSTSWashington Post Editorial Board: The Independent Payment Advisory Board Is “One Of The Most Promising Cost-Control Measures In The New Health-Care Law.” “One of the most promising cost-control measures in the new health-care law is an entity called the Independent Payment Advisory Board, or IPAB… Current law gives it no sway over hospital payments for several years, the board cannot push changes in benefits or cost-sharing, and its purview is limited to Medicare… Perhaps enough cost savings can be achieved through innovations such as electronic medical records and delivery system reform to avoid the need to resort to more painful measures. But that happy result cannot be assumed, which is why repealing IPAB would be a mistake.” [Washington Post, 3/18/2012]One Hundred Health Policy Economists And Experts Urged Congress To Protect And Strengthen The Independent Payment Advisory Board. From a letter signed by one hundred health policy economists and experts written to House Leadership against the GOP-led effort to repeal the IPAB: “We write with regard to the Independent Payment Advisory Board, or IPAB, and the efforts by some in Congress to eliminate this body. We strongly oppose this effort, and encourage Congress to keep, and indeed strengthen, IPAB’s role… We believe that an Independent Board is essential to promote, monitor, and implement reforms that improve Medicare and the nation’s health care system.” [Letter Accessed from National Coalition on Health Care, 5/25/11]Republican Senators Introduced IPAB Repeal Legislation On March 29, 2011 And Republican Representatives In January 2011. “On March 29, Senators John Cornyn (R-TX) and Orrin Hatch (R-UT) introduced S.668, The Health Care Bureaucrats Elimination Act, legislation that would repeal the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB) authorized under Sections 3403 and 10320 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA)… Similar legislation was introduced in the House (H.R. 452) in January 2011 by Representative Phil Roe, M.D., (R-TN).” [AAPMR News, 4/7/11]Pushback: The Affordable Care Act Will Take Medicare Advantage Away From SeniorsMEDICARE ADVANTAGE’S PREMIUMS HAVE FALLEN, AND ENROLLMENT HAS INCREASED SINCE THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT PASSEDAARP: “The ACA Does Not Eliminate Medicare Advantage Plans.” “The ACA does not eliminate Medicare Advantage plans, which are privately administered plans that provide benefits to about a quarter of Americans with Medicare. These plans were created to bring market efficiencies to Medicare, but they actually cost taxpayers 14 percent more per enrollee than the traditional Medicare program does. The ACA aims to bring costs back into line. ‘The plans are still required to provide at least the same benefits as those available through traditional Medicare plans,’ says Stuart Guterman, vice president of the Commonwealth Fund. ‘And for the first time, the law ensures that plans that perform better will be paid better, so the care they provide should improve.’” [AARP, September 2012]Since The Affordable Care Act Was Passed In 2010, Medicare Advantage Premiums Have Fallen 10 Percent And Enrollment Has Risen By 28 Percent. “Enrollment in the Medicare Advantage (MA) program is projected to increase by 11 percent in the next year and premiums will remain steady, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius announced today. Since the Affordable Care Act was passed in 2010, Medicare Advantage premiums have fallen by 10 percent and enrollment has risen by 28 percent.” [Department of Health & Human Services, 9/19/12]For 2013, Enrollment in Medicare Advantage Is Projected To Increase By 11 Percent And Premiums Will Remain Steady. “Enrollment in the Medicare Advantage (MA) program is projected to increase by 11 percent in the next year and premiums will remain steady, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius announced today.” ?[Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, 9/19/12]Premiums In Private Medicare Health Plans Fell Average of 7 Percent In 2011, Higher Than The Projected 1 Percent. “In addition, they said, premiums fell by an average of 7 percent this year, much higher than the 1 percent the government projected a year ago…. Many critics of the federal health law raised fears that Medicare Advantage benefits would shrink and premiums would rise because the overhaul reduced federal payments to the plans by $136 billion for the next decade. ‘Instead, we are seeing just the opposite,’ Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said. ‘Medicare plans are stronger than ever and beneficiaries continue to have access to affordable options.’”[Washington Post, 09/15/11]Washington Post: Medicare Advantage Benefits Will Remain Stable And Premiums Will Fall By An Average Of 4 Percent In Spite Of Critics’ Claims That Health Care Reform Would Negatively Affect The Private Plans. “The nearly 12 million senior citizens enrolled in private Medicare health plans will see their monthly premiums drop by an average of 4 percent while benefits remain stable next year, the Obama administration officials announced Thursday. [Washington Post, 09/15/11]Pushback: President Obama Did Not Raid The Medicare Trust FundTHE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT DOES NOT “RAID” THE MEDICARE TRUST FUND BUT INSTEAD CRACKED DOWN ON MEDICARE FRAUD AND RETURNED BILLIONS TO THE MEDICARE TRUST FUNDPresident Obama Did Not “Raid” The Medicare Trust Fund. “President Obama did not ‘raid’ the Medicare trust fund…. The trust fund holds U.S. government bonds that correspond to the surplus it has accumulated over the years. President Obama did not default on these bonds, which means that he has not pulled any money out of the Medicare system. The claim that President Obama ‘raided’ the trust fund because he has proposed additional health care spending in other areas (including the elimination of doughnut hole in the Medicare prescription drug benefit) is like claiming that a person's checking account had been raided because the bank lent the money to a small business. This is the way a modern economy works” [Business Insider, 8/14/12]: “The President Can’t Actually Take Money Out Of The Trust Fund.”? “And the president can’t actually take money out of the trust fund. Medicare holds those Treasury bonds, and, as we said, it can cash them in anytime it needs the money.” [, 8/24/12]Tampa Bay Times Politifact: “Romney Went Too Far When He Claimed That The President’s Plan ‘Takes That Money Out Of The Medicare Trust Fund And Uses It To Pay For Obamacare.” “But Romney went too far when he claimed that the president's plan ‘takes that money out of the Medicare trust fund and uses it to pay for Obamacare.’ That gives the impression that the law takes money that was already allocated to Medicare and funds the new health care law with it. In fact, the law uses a number of measures to try to reduce the rapid growth of future Medicare spending.” [Tampa Bay Times, Politifact, 8/27/12]In 2010, The Federal Government Returned A Record Of More Than $2.5 Billion To Medicare From Fraud Cases. “The federal government returned a record total of more than $2.5 billion to the Medicare program from settlements and court judgments surrounding health care fraud cases last year, according to a government report issued Monday.” [CNN, 01/24/11]In Fiscal Year 2011, $2.5 Billion Was Returned To The Medicare Trust Funds And Over $599.9 Million In Federal Medicaid Money Was Transferred To The Treasury. “Of this $4.1 billion, the Medicare Trust Funds received transfers of approximately $2.5 billion during this period, and over $599.9 million in Federal Medicaid money was similarly transferred separately to the Treasury as a result of these efforts.” [Department of Health and Human Services, 02/2012]CONTRASTSocial Security ContrastROMNEY’S SOCIAL SECURITY PLAN MIRRORS A CONGRESSIONAL PROPOSAL THAT ONLY RELIES ON BENEFIT CUTS TO SUSTAIN THE PROGRAM…Romney Outlined Three Ways To Make Social Security “Permanently Solvent” But Only Endorsed Two: Raising The Retirement Age And Means-Testing Benefits. Romney said, “Number two is social security. Arithmetically there are probably three ways to making Social Security permanently solvent. Number one would simply be raising taxes, I don’t favor that one. Number two would be to increase the retirement age. Number three would be to have a little slower growth in benefits for higher income beneficiaries. Those last two, some combination of those last two, is the place we could go, in my opinion, to solve social security for future retirees. No change for current retirees or those near retirement. Program stays the same. But for future retirees, lengthening slowly the retirement age and number two slower benefit growth for higher income recipients.” [Editorial Board Interview, Las Vegas Review-Journal, 10/17/11]Peter Diamond And Peter Orszag: On Social Security, “Romney Has Not Yet Filled In The Details, But His Approach Appears To Match The ‘Social Security Solvency And Sustainability Act’ Proposed Last Year By Republican Senators Lindsey Graham Of South Carolina, Rand Paul Of Kentucky And Mike Lee Of Utah.” [Peter Diamond and Peter Orzag, Bloomberg, 3/27/12]Harvard Economics Professor David Cutler: “Romney Has Proposed Closing The Social Security Shortfall Through Benefit Cuts Alone… A Proposal With Provisions That Appear To Match Romney’s Plan – Put Forward By Sens. Lindsey Graham, Rand Paul, And Mike Lee.” [Obama Campaign Memo To Interested Parties: David Cutler, “Let Seniors Go Bankrupt,” 3/22/12]…WHICH WOULD CUT BENEFITS FOR CURRENT WORKERSUnder The Graham-Paul-Lee Proposal, A Worker With Average Earnings Scheduled To Retire In 2030 Would See Annual Benefits Cut By 16%, Or $2,400.Under The Graham-Paul-Lee Proposal, A Worker With Average Earnings Scheduled To Retire In 2030 Would See Monthly Benefits Cut By 16%, Or Nearly $200. According to the Social Security Actuary, a worker who earned $43,085 in 2010 and scheduled to retire in 2030 would see a 16% benefit cut. That individual’s wage indexed monthly benefits would be $1,248 – so a 31.6% benefit cut would reduce the benefits to $199.68.[Social Security Actuary Memo – Graham-Paul-Lee proposal, Table B1, 4/13/11]Under The Graham-Paul-Lee Proposal, A Worker With Average Earnings Scheduled To Retire In 2050 Would See Annual Benefits Cut By 31.6%, Or $4,700.Under The Graham-Paul-Lee Proposal, A Worker With Average Earnings Scheduled To Retire In 2050 Would See Monthly Benefits Cut By 31.6%, Or Nearly $400. According to the Social Security Actuary, a worker who earned $43,085 in 2010 and scheduled to retire in 2050 would see a 31.6% benefit cut. That individual’s wage indexed monthly benefits would be $1,249 – so a 31.6% benefit cut would reduce the benefits to $394.68. [Social Security Actuary Memo – Graham-Paul-Lee proposal, Table B1, 4/13/11]Under The Graham-Paul-Lee Proposal, A Worker With High Earnings Scheduled To Retire In 2050 Would See Benefits Cut By 40.6%. According to the Social Security Actuary, a worker who earned $68,934 in 2010 and scheduled to retire in 2050 would see a 40.6% benefit cut. That individual’s wage indexed monthly benefits would be $ 1,656 – so a 31.6% benefit cut would reduce the benefits to $672.33. [Social Security Actuary Memo – Graham-Paul-Lee proposal, Table B1, 4/13/11]PRESIDENT OBAMA OUTLINED SIX PRINCIPLES FOR SOCIAL SECURITY REFORM AND PROMISED TO STRENGTHEN ITPresident Obama Outlined Six Principles For Social Security Reform, Including Opposing Any Efforts To Privatize Or Weaken Social Security, To Slash Benefits For Future Generations, Or To Reduce Basic Benefits For Current Recipients.? “The President is committed to making sure that Social Security is solvent and viable for the American people, now and in the future. He is strongly opposed to privatizing Social Security and looks forward to working in a bipartisan way to strengthen Social Security for years to come. Guiding the Administration in these talks will be the President’s six principles for reform: any reform should strengthen Social Security for future generations and restore long-term solvency; the Administration will oppose any measures to privatize or weaken the Social Security system; while all measures to strengthen solvency should be on the table, the Administration will not accept an approach that slashes benefits for future generations; no current beneficiaries should see their basic benefits reduced; reform should strengthen retirement security for the most vulnerable, including low-income seniors; reform should maintain robust disability and survivors’ benefits.” [White House Fact Sheet, February 2012]President Obama: We Have To Keep The Promise “To Safeguard Social Security For Our Seniors, People With Disabilities, And All Americans Today, Tomorrow, And Forever.” “We have an obligation to keep that promise; to safeguard Social Security for our seniors, people with disabilities, and all Americans -- today, tomorrow, and forever.” [Remarks by the President at a Weekly Address, 8/14/10]THE PRESIDENT REFUSES TO SLASH BENEFITS FOR CURRENT AND FUTURE SENIORS OR PRIVATIZE SOCIAL SECURITY AND SUBJECT IT TO THE WHIMS OF WALL STREET President Obama: “And We Will Keep The Promise Of Social Security By Taking The Responsible Steps To Strengthen It, Not By Turning It Over To Wall Street.” [Remarks By The President At The Democratic National Convention, 9/6/12]Center On Budget And Policy Priorities: One Striking Feature Of The Obama Budget Is The Degree To Which Federal Spending Outside Social Security, Medicare, And Medicaid Would?Fall?As A Share Of GDP. “Indeed, the composition of the deficit reduction under the Obama budget is actually to the conservative side of the Bowles-Simpson plan — it raises significantly less in revenues and reduces security spending much less than Bowles-Simpson would. One striking feature of the Obama budget is the degree to which federal spending outside Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid would?fall?as a share of GDP. Non-security discretionary spending would fall from 3.1% of GDP in 2011 to 1.7% in 2021 and 2022, the lowest level on record with data back to 1962. Spending for mandatory programs other than Social Security and Medicare — a budget category that?includes the Medicaid program and the costs of the health reform law — would decline from 6% of GDP in 2011 to 5.5% in 2022. Entitlement and mandatory programs other than Social Security, Medicare,?and?Medicaid would fall from 4.2% of GDP in 2011 to 3.2% in 2022.” [Center On Budget And Policy Priorities, 2/16/12]Romney’s False Claim That President Obama Cut $716 Billion From MedicareROMNEY VOWED TO DO AWAY WITH THE $716 BILLION MEDICARE SAVINGS – THAT RYAN’S BUDGET RETAINED – WHICH WOULD COST SENIORS MORERomney: “The President's Cutting $716 Billion From Current Medicare. I Disagree With That. I'd Put Those Dollars Back Into Medicare.” [60 Minutes, CBS, 9/23/12]New York Times Headline: “Patients Would Pay More if Romney Restores Medicare Savings, Analysts Say.” [New York Times, 8/21/12]Romney “Papers Over” The Important Fact That “Ryan’s Budget Blueprints — Which Republicans Overwhelmingly Voted For In 2011 And 2012 — Includes The Same [Medicare] Cuts He’s Slamming.” “‘There’s only one president that I know of in history that robbed Medicare — $716 billion to pay for a new risky program of his own that we call Obamacare,’ Romney said in a CBS interview Sunday evening.? The claim is central to Romney’s strategy of deflecting attacks on his vice presidential pick’s plan to remake Medicare. But it papers over important facts, one of which is Ryan’s budget blueprints — which Republicans overwhelmingly voted for in 2011 and 2012 — includes the same cuts he’s slamming.” [Talking Points Memo, 8/13/12]??The New Republic’s Jonathan Cohn On Attacking Obama For Medicare Savings: “Ryan Has No Standing Whatsoever To Make This Attack, Because His Own Budget Called For Taking The Same Amount Of Money From Medicare. Twice.” [Jonathan Cohn, The New Republic, 8/29/12]THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT EXTENDS THE SOLVENCY OF MEDICARE PART A TO 2024, CUTS WASTE AND FRAUD IN MEDICARE, AND STRENGTHENS BENEFITS FOR SENIORSAARP:? The Affordable Care Act “Protects And Strengthens Guaranteed Benefits In Medicare.”? “The legislative package [the Affordable Care Act] cracks down on insurance company abuses and protects and strengthens guaranteed benefits in Medicare, the program millions of our members depend on and in which millions more will soon enroll. It closes the dreaded Medicare Part D ‘doughnut hole,’ a gap in prescription drug coverage that is life-threatening for many. … And it improves efforts to crack down on fraud and waste in Medicare, strengthening the program for today’s seniors and future generations.” [AARP Press Release, 3/10/12]Cleveland Plain Dealer Politifact Has Rated The Assertion That The Affordable Care Act Cuts Medicare False. “The NRSC’s claim cites a real figure -- $500 billion -- that is part of the health reform debate. But it incorrectly describes it as $500 billion in Medicare cuts, rather than as decreases in the rate of growth of future spending.And the NRSC piles on the incorrect talking point about "government-run health care. On the Truth-Meter, the NRSC’s claim rates as False.” [Cleveland Plain Dealer, Politifact, 06/09/11]New York Times Editorial Board: “$716 Billion Is Not A ‘Cut’ In Benefits But Rather The Savings In Costs That The Congressional Budget Office Projects Over The Next Decade From Wholly Reasonable Provisions In The Reform Law.” ?“A Republican attack ad says that the reform law has “cut” $716 billion from Medicare, with the money used to expand coverage to low-income people who are currently uninsured….In reality, the $716 billion is not a ‘cut’ in benefits but rather the savings in costs that the Congressional Budget Office projects over the next decade from wholly reasonable provisions in the reform law.”? [Editorial, New York Times, 8/18/12]The Affordable Care Act Extends The Solvency Of Medicare Part A To 2024, Eight Years Longer Than Without Health Care Reform. “The Medicare Trustees Report released today shows that the Hospital Insurance (HI) Trust Fund is expected to remain solvent until 2024, the same as last year’s estimate, but action is needed to secure its long-term future.? In 2011, the HI Trust Fund expenditures were lower than expected. Without the Affordable Care Act, the HI Trust Fund would expire 8 years earlier, in 2016. ”[Center For Medicare & Medicaid Services, 04/23/12]ABC News Fact Check: Spending Will Be Reduced By Getting Rid of Fraud and Ending Overpayment To Private Insurance Companies.” “Medicare spending will continue to grow, according to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), but ACA will slow that growth….spending will be reduced by getting rid of fraud and ending overpayments to private insurance companies. It sends a message to those insurance companies: Operate more efficiently.”? [ABC News, 6/28/12]The Affordable Care Act Closes The Prescription Drug Coverage Gap—The “Doughnut Hole”—In Medicare Part D By 2020. “The Affordable Care Act includes benefits to make your Medicare prescription drug coverage (Part D) more affordable. It does this by gradually closing the gap in drug coverage known as the ‘Donut Hole.’...the gap is closed in 2020.” [, 08/03/11]In The First 8 Months Of 2012 Alone, Medicare Beneficiaries In The Doughnut Hole Saved On Average Over $641 On Their Prescription Drugs. “Seniors in the Medicare prescription drug coverage gap known as the donut hole have saved an average of $641 in the first eight months of 2012 alone.”?[Department of Health and Human Services, Press Release, 9/21/12]Romney Would Push Medicare Closer To InsolvencyTHE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT EXTENDS THE SOLVENCY OF MEDICARE TO 2024 The Affordable Care Act Extends The Solvency Of Medicare Part A To 2024, Eight Years Longer Than Without Health Care Reform. “The Medicare Trustees Report released today shows that the Hospital Insurance (HI) Trust Fund is expected to remain solvent until 2024, the same as last year’s estimate, but action is needed to secure its long-term future.? In 2011, the HI Trust Fund expenditures were lower than expected. Without the Affordable Care Act, the HI Trust Fund would expire 8 years earlier, in 2016. ”[Center For Medicare & Medicaid Services, 04/23/12]: Changes “In Future Growth Of Spending Prolong The Life Of The Medicare Trust Fund.” “Republicans claim the president’s $716 billion ‘cuts’ to Medicare hurt the program’s finances. But the opposite is true. These cuts in the future growth of spending prolong the life of the Medicare trust fund, stretching the program’s finances out longer than they would last otherwise.” [, 8/24/12]ROMNEY AND RYAN VOW TO REPEAL THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT WHICH WOULD BRING MEDICARE CLOSER TO INSOLVENCY Romney: “If I’m President, I Will Repeal Obamacare, And I’ll Kill It Dead On Its First Day.” [Romney town hall, Collinsville, IL, 3/17/12]2013 Ryan Budget Repealed Health Care Reform Bill. Here’s a review of the 32 votes taken since January 2011. Note that the vote count, provided by the office of the House Majority Whip, includes votes on final passage of bills and the passage of certain amendments related to the health-care law: … 28.) March 29, 2012: The Fiscal 2013 Federal Budget: This spending proposal also repealed and defunded the health law.” [, 7/11/12]New York Times Editorial: “The Affordable Care Act Helped Push Back The Insolvency Date By Eight Years, So Repealing The Act Would Actually Bring The Trust Fund Closer To Insolvency, Perhaps In 2016.” [Editorial, New York Times, 8/18/12]ATTACKRomney Would Slash MedicaidTHE ROMNEY-RYAN PLAN WOULD CUT MEDICAID BY $800 BILLION Ryan’s Budget Would Have States Take Over Medicaid While Cutting Federal Spending To Medicaid By $800 Billion Over 10 Years. “Under the Wisconsin congressman's Medicaid plan, states would take over the program. Simultaneously, Ryan's proposed budget would reduce projected federal spending by about $800 billion over 10 years, shrinking Medicaid as a share of the overall national economy. The plan has passed the Republican-led House two years in a row.” [Associated Press, 8/15/12]Edwin Park Of The Center On Budget And Policy Priorities: “Medicaid Is Already A Very Lean Program […] The Only Way To Compensate For Funding Reductions Of This Magnitude Would Be To Institute Deep, Damaging Cuts To Beneficiaries And The Health Care Providers Who Serve Them.” “‘Medicaid is already a very lean program,’ said Edwin Park of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, which advocates for low-income people. ‘It is not a program where you can magically glean huge efficiencies by just devolving it to the states. The only way to compensate for funding reductions of this magnitude would be to institute deep, damaging cuts to beneficiaries and the health care providers who serve them.’” [Associated Press, 8/15/12]THE ROMNEY-RYAN PLAN TO SLASH MEDICAID FUNDING WOULD PUT SENIORS AT RISK Washington Post: The Impact Of Romney’s Health-Care Proposals “Could Be Greatest For The Lowest-Income Seniors, Who Qualify For Both The Medicare And Medicaid Programs” Where “There Could Be A Significant Slowdown In Federal Funds Available For Their Care.” “It has been a central campaign promise from Mitt Romney: His Medicare overhaul plan would not touch benefits for anyone older than 55. That may not, however, be the case with the Republican presidential nominee’s other health-care proposals. A growing body of research suggests that his plans to repeal the Affordable Care Act and cut Medicaid funding would have a direct impact on the health care that seniors receive… The impact could be greatest for the lowest-income seniors, who qualify for both the Medicare and Medicaid programs, and there could be a significant slowdown in federal funds available for their care.”? [Wonk Blog, Washington Post, 9/17/12]Former Medicare Director Under President George W. Bush, Gail Wilensky: Romney’s Plans To Cut Medicaid Spending On Current Beneficiaries By More Than $600 Billion, “That’s Where The Risk To The Population Comes In” … “That’s Place Where Seniors Could Be Vulnerable.” “The Romney budget would reduce Medicaid spending on current beneficiaries by more than $600 billion over the next decade, according to a recent Bloomberg Government analysis. ‘That’s where the risk to the population comes in,’ said Gail Wilensky, a former Medicare director under President George W. Bush. ‘If too much money is withdrawn from Medicaid, unless you think massive efficiencies are achievable, that’s a place where seniors could be vulnerable.’” [Wonk Blog, Washington Post, 9/17/12]Health Economist At Harvard University, David Cutler: Romney’s “Medicaid Cuts Have The Potential To Be Really, Really Bad For Seniors.” “The biggest change, however, may not be in Medicare at all. It could result from Romney’s planned spending reductions for approximately 6 million low-income seniors eligible for both the Medicare and Medicaid programs. ‘Seniors can survive with the changes to the Affordable Care Act,’ said David Cutler, a health economist at Harvard University who has advised the Obama administration on health policy. ‘No one is going to claim that’s the end of the word. The Medicaid cuts have the potential to be really, really bad for seniors.’Romney has proposed turning Medicaid into a block grant program, where a state would get a lump-sum check for covering its beneficiaries. That check would be set to grow at 1 percent faster than inflation. That would be significantly slower than Medicaid’s historical growth, reducing the strain on the federal budget. These seniors, usually referred to as ‘dual eligibles,’ tend to have expensive health-care needs, accounting for 20 percent of Medicaid’s $251 billion in spending last year.” [Wonk Blog, Washington Post, 9/17/12]MIDDLE-CLASS FAMILIES RELY ON MEDICAID TO HELP THEIR LOVED ONES AFFORD NURSING HOMESTampa Bay Times: Middle-Class Families “Should Be Especially Wary” Of Romney’s Plan For Medicaid Because Medicaid “Covers Nursing Home Care For Aged And Infirm Parents And Grandparents.” “But what is getting far less scrutiny: Romney's plans for Medicaid. He would convert the health care program for the poor, disabled and elderly into a block grant to the states and sharply reduce funding over time. Middle-class Americans should be especially wary, since it's Medicaid, not Medicare, that covers nursing home care for aged and infirm parents and grandparents. Without Medicaid's safety net, it isn't clear what those Americans would do, and Romney doesn't have any good answers.” [Editorial, Tampa Bay Times, 9/24/12]New York Times: “What Happens To Medicaid [Under Paul Ryan’s Budget] Will Have A Significant Effect On Many Middle Class Older People Who Rely On The Program For Nursing Home Care.” [New York Times, 9/1/12]New York Times Editorial: “Republicans Aren’t Mentioning That Their Proposal To Eliminate Federal Control Of The Medicaid Program Would…Affect Middle Class Families Who Have Relied On The Program To Pay For Nursing Home Care.” [New York Times Editorial, 8/30/12]FAMILIES WITH CHILDREN WITH DISABILITIES RELY ON MEDICAID FOR INSURANCE COVERAGEBaltimore Sun: “For Children And Adults With Intellectual And Developmental Disabilities And Their Families, Medicaid…Is The Reason People With Disabilities And Their Families Have Been Able To Thrive In Our Communities.” [Baltimore Sun, 9/25/12]Medicaid “Was Designed As A Program to Provide Health Coverage To People With Diverse Health Needs That Includes Adults And Children With Disabilities.” “Medicaid was designed as a program to provide health coverage to people with diverse health needs that includes adults and children with disabilities and, therefore, provides a comprehensive set of acute and long-term care benefits that include and extend beyond standard medical care.? This includes supportive services that complement medical care and help people with disabilities maintain their independence—services which are not traditionally covered by other sources of insurance.” [Diane Rowland, Executive Vice President, Kaiser Family Foundation, Testimony Before The U.S. House Of Representative, 1/16/08] Medicare: Romney Would Turn Medicare Into A Voucher PlanTHE ROMNEY-RYAN PLAN WOULD END MEDICARE AS WE KNOW IT – TURNING IT INTO A VOUCHER SYSTEM…New York Magazine’s Jonathan Chait: President Obama’s Argument That Romney Would “End Medicare As We Know It” Is “Undeniably True.” “Today President Obama talks Medicare in Florida and argues that Mitt Romney will ‘end Medicare as we know it.’ The claim is undeniably true, though keep in mind that ‘as we know it’ is a fairly elastic term.” [Jonathan Chait, New York Magazine, 7/19/12] Romney Adviser Tara Wall Said Romney And Ryan “Are Certainly?100% On The Same Page And On The Same Path Relative To Saying That We Have To Reform Medicare, Offering Options Like Vouchers.” [CNN Newsroom, CNN, 8/14/12]Romney: “Paul Ryan And My Plan For Medicare I Think Is The Same, If Not Identical It's Probably Close To Identical.” [WBAY (Green Bay, WI), 8/15/12]Bloomberg: “Ryan’s Budget Bill Also Would End Traditional Medicare By Capping Spending And Offer Vouchers To Buy Private Insurance.” [Bloomberg, 8/13/12]Romney’s Medicare Plan: “Medicare Is Reformed As A Premium Support System, Meaning That Existing Spending Is Repackaged As A Fixed-Amount Benefit To Each Senior That He Or She Can Use To Purchase An Insurance Plan.” [Romney Press Release, Spending Plan – “Cut The Spending,” 11/4/11]Reuters: “Ryan's Plan Calls For An End To The Guaranteed Benefit In Medicare And Replaces It With A System That Would Give Vouchers To Recipients To Pay For Health Insurance.” [Reuters, 8/12/12]…WHICH WOULD SHIFT MORE COSTS ON TO SENIORS AND INCREASES COSTS BY MORE THAN $6,000 EACH YEARLos Angeles Times Headline: “Seniors Would Pay The Price Of Ryan’s Plan To Overhaul Medicare.” [Los Angeles Times, 8/13/12]Los Angeles Times: Under The Ryan Budget “Seniors Would End Up Paying Almost Twice As Much Out Of Their Own Pockets.” [Los Angeles Times, 4/7/11]New York Times Editorial: Ryan’s Plan Would Turn Medicare Into A Voucher System And “Would Leave Older Americans On Average With $6,400 In Extra Costs By 2022, According To The Congressional Budget Office.” “Most voters know little about Mr. Ryan. Those who have heard of him are probably most familiar with his Medicare plan, which would turn the program into a voucher system that would pay beneficiaries a fixed amount for their medical care, leaving them on their own if the voucher did not cover their costs. This notion so alarmed the public last year that Mr. Ryan was forced to backtrack and leave the existing Medicare system as an option. Even so, the plan would leave older Americans on average with $6,400 in extra costs by 2022, according to the Congressional Budget Office.” [Editorial, New York Times, 8/13/12]Center On Budget And Policy Priorities: Under Ryan’s Plan, Seniors On Medicare Would Pay $6,350 More In Out-Of-Pocket Costs By 2022. [Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, Off the Charts blog, 4/8/11]Harvard’s David Cutler: Even Analyzed, “Conservatively,” A Voucher Plan Like Romney’s Could Increases Costs By $6,800A Year “For A Person Reaching Eligibility Age In 2030.” “In 2011, CBO released an analysis of Ryan’s first premium support plan, which replaced traditional Medicare with vouchers that seniors would use to help pay for private insurance.? The CBO found that it would cost private plans 39% more than traditional Medicare to deliver the same services. There were two reasons for this: first, private plans have higher administrative costs (including profits), and second they have less bargaining power and therefore would need to pay higher rates to providers. That 39% works out to an extra $6,400 a year for a typical 65 year old in 2030. Under the new premium support plan, which our paper analyzed, all new retirees receive a voucher that they can use to buy coverage from a private plan or from traditional Medicare. Because traditional Medicare is still an option, the erosion of bargaining power under the new Romney-Ryan plan is less immediate. Still, it is there. Anything that moves a significant share of people out of traditional Medicare will mean that Medicare has to pay more to ensure access. Conservatively, we estimated that the total extra costs to care for seniors in the future would be half what CBO estimated – 19.5% rather than 39% – and that effect would take 10 years to phase in. Adding these amounts over expected lifetimes yields the numbers we reported in our previous analysis. To show what this implies on an annual basis, we divide the increase in real costs by years of life remaining as of the age of Medicare eligibility.? Figure 3 shows the results.? The additional costs are $3,200 annually for a person reaching eligibility age in 2023, $6,800 annually for a person reaching eligibility age in 2030, $12,000 annually for a person reaching eligibility age in 2040, and $17,800 annually for a person reaching eligibility age in 2050.” [David Cutler, A Follow-Up on the Analysis of the Romney-Ryan Medicare Plan, 10/2/12]Harvard’s David Cutler: “Even Under The Revised Voucher Proposal, The Additional Cost To Enroll In Medicare For The Vast Bulk Of People Will Be $6,000 Annually Or More.” [David Cutler, A Follow-Up on the Analysis of the Romney-Ryan Medicare Plan, 10/2/12]ROMNEY ADMITTED HIS VOUCHERS WOULDN’T GROW AS QUICKLY AS HEALTH CARE COSTS AND SENIORS COULD PAY MORE FOR TRADITIONAL MEDICARERomney: Premium Supports In His Medicare Plan Would Not Grow At The Rate Of Medical Inflation. “KLEIN: Would the value -- under your plan would the value of those subsidies grow at the standard measure of consumer inflation, or the rate of medical inflation? ROMNEY: Well it couldn't do the latter or it would have no particular impact on reining in the excessive cost of our entitlement program.” [Romney Interview, Washington Examiner, 12/7/11]Romney On His Medicare Plan: Congress Would Adopt A Plan To Grow Premium Support Payments “Over Time At A Controlled Rate.” Romney on his Medicare plan: “And by virtue of Congress adopting a plan to grow those premium support payments over time at a controlled rate, we're able to make Medicare cost-effective and not break the bank. Make sure that it's sustained long term.” [Des Moines Register Editorial Board Meeting, 12/9/11]Under Romney’s Medicare Plan If It Costs The Government More To Provide Traditional Medicare Than It Costs Private Plans To Offer Their Version “Premiums Charged By The Government Will Have To Be Higher And Seniors Will Have To Pay The Difference To Enroll In The Traditional Medicare Option.”? “‘Traditional’ fee-for-service Medicare will be offered by the government as an insurance plan, meaning that seniors can purchase that form of coverage if they prefer it; however, if it costs the government more to provide that service than it costs private plans to offer their versions, then the premiums charged by the government will have to be higher and seniors will have to pay the difference to enroll in the traditional Medicare option.” [Issues: Medicare, Romney For President, accessed 6/11/12]AARP: THE ROMNEY-RYAN PLAN WOULD “UNDERMINE” TRADITIONAL MEDICARE AND LEAD TO HIGHER COSTS FOR SENIORS AARP: The Ryan Budget “Converting Medicare To A Series Of Private Options Would Undermine The Market Power Of?Medicare And Lead To Higher Costs For Seniors.” “On behalf of over 38 million members and other Americans who are age 50and older, AARP is writing to express serious concerns with the House Concurrent Resolution on the Budget?for Fiscal Year (FY) 2013.?While the House Republican budget proposal offers ideas for confronting our nation's deficits and debt, AARP believes the proposal lacks balance,?jeopardizes the health and economic security of?older Americans, and puts at risk the bipartisan agreement on FY 2013 discretionary spending levels included in last year’s Budget Control Act. … The plan fails to realize the?negotiating?power of Medicare and its impact on lowering costs for the Medicare program – such as in Part D of the program. Converting Medicare to?a series of private options would undermine the market power of Medicare and could lead to higher costs for seniors.” [A. Barry Rand, AARP, Letter To Members of Congress, 3/21/12]AARP: Ryan’s Plan Would “Subject Medicare Beneficiaries To An Experimental And Unproven Health Care Model,” Which Is Inappropriate. “While we appreciate the effort to address the sustainability of the Medicare program, we do not think it is appropriate to subject Medicare beneficiaries to an experimental and unproven health care model. We need to make sure the program remains a viable and affordable option for the over 47 million Medicare recipients that rely on the program for their health care needs.” [A. Barry Rand, AARP, Letter To Members of Congress, 3/21/12]AARP Wrote Members Of Congress Saying That The Ryan Budget “Jeopardizes The Health And Economic Security Of Older Americans.” [A. Barry Rand, AARP, Letter To Members of Congress, 3/21/12]IF A PLAN LIKE ROMNEY’S HAD BEEN IN PLACE FOR TODAY’S SENIORS, 60% WOULD HAVE TO PAY MORE FOR THE SAME COVERAGEBloomberg Headline: “Medicare Premiums Would Rise for 59% With Ryan Plan.” [Bloomberg, 10/15/12]Kaiser Family Foundation Study: Under A Medicare Plan Similar To Paul Ryan’s, 59% Of Seniors On Medicare Would Have Paid More For Their Care In 2010. “Elderly people in Florida would have paid more than $200 extra for traditional Medicare if a system similar to Paul Ryan’s proposed overhaul of the program had been in place in 2010, according to researchers at the nonprofit Kaiser Family Foundation. Ryan, the Republican vice presidential nominee, has proposed transforming Medicare into a ‘premium support’ system in which beneficiaries get a fixed payment from the government for their health insurance, instead of guaranteed benefits. Such a plan would lead to wide variations in the cost of Medicare across the country, according to the Kaiser study reported today. Fifty-nine percent of Medicare beneficiaries would have paid more in 2010, unless they switched from traditional Medicare or their current private coverage to a lower-cost plan, the researchers found.” [Bloomberg, 10/15/12]Kaiser Family Foundation Study “[Looked] AtWhether That Check Would Cover The Benefits That Seniors Get Right Now. For 59 Percent Of Seniors, It Wouldn’t: 25 Million Seniors Would Pay More For Their Current Benefits If The Government Enacted This Premium Support Model Right Now.” [Washington Post, Wonk blog, 10/15/12]Washington Post’s Wonk Blog Headline: “Study: Under Romney-Ryan’s Medicare Plan, Seniors Face Higher Costs.” [Washington Post, Wonk blog, 10/15/12]Medicare: Romney Would Repeal Medicare SavingsRYAN’S BUDGETS RETAINED THE SAME MEDICARE SAVINGS HE AND ROMNEY ARE CRITICIZING?Romney “Papers Over” The Important Fact That “Ryan’s Budget Blueprints — Which Republicans Overwhelmingly Voted For In 2011 And 2012 — Includes The Same [Medicare] Cuts He’s Slamming.” “‘There’s only one president that I know of in history that robbed Medicare — $716 billion to pay for a new risky program of his own that we call Obamacare,’ Romney said in a CBS interview Sunday evening.? The claim is central to Romney’s strategy of deflecting attacks on his vice presidential pick’s plan to remake Medicare. But it papers over important facts, one of which is Ryan’s budget blueprints — which Republicans overwhelmingly voted for in 2011 and 2012 — includes the same cuts he’s slamming.” [Talking Points Memo, 8/13/12]??Ryan’s Budgets – Which Nearly Every House And Senate Republican Voted For – Included The Medicare Savings Passed In Obamacare. “Ryan's budget proposal also includes complete repeal of the ACA, with one little-noticed exception, the $500 billion in ACA Medicare reductions. Oh. Nearly every House and Senate Republican votes for the Ryan proposal. In the spring of 2012, Ryan again releases the plan, and includes the same repeal of the ACA, minus the Medicare reductions, now approaching $700B. And, again, nearly every House Republican votes for the plan.” [The Boston Globe, Health Stew blog, 8/12/12]New York Times Editorial: “In Reality, The $716 Billion Is Not A ‘Cut’ In Benefits But Rather The Savings In Costs That The Congressional Budget Office Projects Over The Next Decade From Wholly Reasonable Provisions In The Reform Law.” [Editorial, New York Times, 8/18/12]ROMNEY-RYAN’S PLAN TO REPEAL THE MEDICARE SAVINGS WILL IMMEDIATELY COST SENIORS HUNDREDS OF DOLLARS A YEAR IN OUT-OF-POCKET COSTS New York Times Headline: “Patients Would Pay More if Romney Restores Medicare Savings, Analysts Say.” [New York Times, 8/21/12]New York Times: Analysts Said That Repealing Medicare Savings “Would Immediately Add Hundreds Of Dollars A Year To Out-Of-Pocket Medicare Expenses For Beneficiaries.” “While Republicans have raised legitimate questions about the long-term feasibility of the reimbursement cuts, analysts say, to restore them in the short term would immediately add hundreds of dollars a year to out-of-pocket Medicare expenses for beneficiaries. That would violate Mr. Romney’s vow that neither current beneficiaries nor Americans within 10 years of eligibility would be affected by his proposal to shift Medicare to a voucherlike system in which recipients are given a lump sum to buy coverage from competing insurers.” [New York Times, 8/21/12]New York Times: “Marilyn Moon, Vice President And Director Of The Health Program At The American Institutes For Research, Calculated That Restoring The $716 Billion In Medicare Savings Would Increase Premiums And Co-Payments For Beneficiaries By $342 A Year On Average Over The Next Decade; In 2022, The Average Increase Would Be $577.” [New York Times, 8/21/12]Medicare: Romney Would Bankrupt Medicare And Re-Open The Doughnut HoleROMNEY AND RYAN VOW TO REPEAL THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT WHICH EXTENDED THE SOLVENCY OF THE MEDICARE TRUST FUND BY EIGHT YEARS…New York Times Editorial: “The Affordable Care Act Helped Push Back The Insolvency Date By Eight Years, So Repealing The Act Would Actually Bring The Trust Fund Closer To Insolvency, Perhaps In 2016.” [Editorial, New York Times, 8/18/12]The Affordable Care Act Extends The Solvency Of Medicare Part A To 2024, Eight Years Longer Than Without Health Care Reform. “The Trustees annual report says that Medicare’s Hospital Insurance (HI) Trust Fund is now projected to remain solvent until 2024. Without the reforms in the Affordable Care Act, the Medicare HI Trust Fund would expire in just five years – in 2016.? The report issued today shows these reforms added eight years of solvency.”[Center For Medicare & Medicaid Services, 05/13/11]The Affordable Care Act Achieves Short-Term Savings Of Over $200 Billion In Medicare Through 2016, Resulting In Immediate Benefit To The Medicare Trust Fund. “The Affordable Care Act: Achieves short-term savings of over $200 billion in Medicare through 2016 according to the independent CMS Actuary…resulting in immediate benefit to the Medicare Trust Fund.” [Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, 04/23/12]…AND DRIVE UP COSTS FOR MANY SENIORS, RE-OPENING THE DOUGHNUT HOLE AND REMOVING FREE PREVENTIVE BENEFITS FOR MILLIONS OF MEDICARE RECIPIENTS?New York Times Editorial: Romney-Ryan’s Pledged Repeal Of Obamacare “Would Drive Up Costs For Many Seniors— Namely Those With High Prescription Drug Costs… And Those Who Are Receiving Preventive Services.” “But if Mr. Romney and Mr. Ryan were able to repeal the reform law, as they have pledged to do, that would drive up costs for many seniors — namely those with high prescription drug costs, who are already receiving subsidies under the reform law, and those who are receiving preventive services, like colonoscopies, mammograms and immunizations, with no cost sharing.” [Editorial, New York Times, 8/18/12]?The New Republic’s Jonathan Cohn: Under The Romney-Ryan Plan, “The Part D Donut Hole Would Open Back Up” And “Access To Free Preventative Care Would Vanish.” “Ryan's budget—which, again, Romney has repeatedly embraced and said he would sign—actually takes those new benefits away. The Part D donut hole would open back up. Access to free preventative care would vanish.” [The New Republic, 8/12/12]Medicare: Wyden Did Not Support Ryan On Medicare And Voted Against The Ryan BudgetSEN. WYDEN: ROMNEY IS “TALKING NONSENSE” -? “I SPOKE AND VOTED AGAINST THE MEDICARE PROVISION IN THE RYAN BUDGET”?Oregonian Headline: “Sen. Wyden Says Romney Is 'Talking Nonsense' About Wyden's Medicare Work With Paul Ryan” [Oregonian, 8/11/12]?Roll Call Headline: “Ron Wyden Takes Issue With Mitt Romney Linking Him To Paul Ryan.” [Roll Call, 8/12/12]??Senator Wyden Said Romney Was “Talking Nonsense” When Touting Ryan As A Bipartisan In Reference To Ryan’s Work On Medicare. “Romney, in his second appearance with Ryan Saturday after naming him to the GOP presidential ticket, praised Ryan's willingness to reach across party lines. ‘This man said I'm going to find Democrats to work with,’ Romney said. Then, refering to Wyden and Ryan's work on Medicare, Romney added, ‘He found a Democrat to co-lead a piece of legislation.’ Wyden fired back Saturday evening that Romney is ‘talking nonsense.’” [Oregonian, 8/11/12]Sen. Ron Wyden: “Gov. Romney Needs To Learn You Don’t Protect Seniors By Makings Things Up, And His Comments Today Sure Won’t Help Promote Real Bipartisanship.” [Roll Call, 8/12/12]?Sen. Ron Wyden: “Bipartisanship Requires That You Not Make Up The Facts.” [Roll Call, 8/12/12]?Senator Wyden: “I Did Not ‘Co-Lead A Piece Of Legislation’” With Ryan And “I Spoke And Voted Against The Medicare Provisions In The Ryan Budget.” Senator Wyden: “Bipartisanship requires that you not make up the facts. I did not ‘co-lead a piece of legislation.’ I wrote a policy paper on options for Medicare. Several months after the paper came out I spoke and voted against the Medicare provisions in the Ryan budget.? Governor Romney needs to learn you don't protect seniors by makings things up, and his comments today sure won't help promote real bipartisanship.” [Oregonian, 8/11/12]?Oregonian: “Wyden Has Repeatedly Said That The Medicare Plan That Ryan Pushed Through The Republican-Led House Is Different From The ‘Policy Paper’ That He Produced With Ryan.” [Oregonian, 8/11/12]2012: SENATOR WYDEN VOTED AGAINST THE RYAN BUDGET?Sen. Wyden Voted Against Ryan Budget. In 2012, Wyden voted against the motion to proceed to Rep. Ryan’s budget proposal. [Senate Vote #98, 5/16/12]Social Security: Romney Would Cut BenefitsROMNEY’S SOCIAL SECURITY PLAN MIRRORS A PROPOSAL FROM SENATORS LINDSEY GRAHAM, RAND PAUL, AND MIKE LEE…Romney Outlined Three Ways To Make Social Security “Permanently Solvent” But Only Endorsed Two: Raising The Retirement Age And Means-Testing Benefits. Romney said, “Number two is social security. Arithmetically there are probably three ways to making Social Security permanently solvent. Number one would simply be raising taxes, I don’t favor that one. Number two would be to increase the retirement age. Number three would be to have a little slower growth in benefits for higher income beneficiaries. Those last two, some combination of those last two, is the place we could go, in my opinion, to solve social security for future retirees. No change for current retirees or those near retirement. Program stays the same. But for future retirees, lengthening slowly the retirement age and number two slower benefit growth for higher income recipients.” [Editorial Board Interview, Las Vegas Review-Journal, 10/17/11]Peter Diamond And Peter Orszag: On Social Security, “Romney Has Not Yet Filled In The Details, But His Approach Appears To Match The ‘Social Security Solvency And Sustainability Act’ Proposed Last Year By Republican Senators Lindsey Graham Of South Carolina, Rand Paul Of Kentucky And Mike Lee Of Utah.” [Peter Diamond and Peter Orzag, Bloomberg, 3/27/12]Harvard Economics Professor David Cutler: “Romney Has Proposed Closing The Social Security Shortfall Through Benefit Cuts Alone… A Proposal With Provisions That Appear To Match Romney’s Plan – Put Forward By Sens. Lindsey Graham, Rand Paul, And Mike Lee.” [Obama Campaign Memo To Interested Parties: David Cutler, “Let Seniors Go Bankrupt,” 3/22/12]…WHICH WOULD CUT BENEFITS FOR CURRENT WORKERSUnder The Graham-Paul-Lee Proposal, A Worker With Average Earnings Scheduled To Retire In 2030 Would See Annual Benefits Cut By 16%, Or $2,400.Under The Graham-Paul-Lee Proposal, A Worker With Average Earnings Scheduled To Retire In 2030 Would See Monthly Benefits Cut By 16%, Or Nearly $200. According to the Social Security Actuary, a worker who earned $43,085 in 2010 and scheduled to retire in 2030 would see a 16% benefit cut. That individual’s wage indexed monthly benefits would be $1,248 – so a 31.6% benefit cut would reduce the benefits to $199.68.[Social Security Actuary Memo – Graham-Paul-Lee proposal, Table B1, 4/13/11]Under The Graham-Paul-Lee Proposal, A Worker With Average Earnings Scheduled To Retire In 2050 Would See Annual Benefits Cut By 31.6%, Or $4,700.Under The Graham-Paul-Lee Proposal, A Worker With Average Earnings Scheduled To Retire In 2050 Would See Monthly Benefits Cut By 31.6%, Or Nearly $400. According to the Social Security Actuary, a worker who earned $43,085 in 2010 and scheduled to retire in 2050 would see a 31.6% benefit cut. That individual’s wage indexed monthly benefits would be $1,249 – so a 31.6% benefit cut would reduce the benefits to $394.68. [Social Security Actuary Memo – Graham-Paul-Lee proposal, Table B1, 4/13/11]Under The Graham-Paul-Lee Proposal, A Worker With High Earnings Scheduled To Retire In 2050 Would See Benefits Cut By 40.6%. According to the Social Security Actuary, a worker who earned $68,934 in 2010 and scheduled to retire in 2050 would see a 40.6% benefit cut. That individual’s wage indexed monthly benefits would be $ 1,656 – so a 31.6% benefit cut would reduce the benefits to $672.33. [Social Security Actuary Memo – Graham-Paul-Lee proposal, Table B1, 4/13/11]Social Security: Romney Would Raise Taxes On Social Security BenefitsIF ROMNEY PAYS FOR HIS TAX PLAN BY LIMITING DEDUCTIONS, HE COULD INCREASE TAXES ON SENIORS ON SOCIAL SECURITY BY HUNDREDS OF DOLLARS…Tax Policy Center: Assuming Romney Pays For His Tax Plan By Cutting Deductions Would Put On The Table Provisions Like The “The Partial Exclusion Of Social Security Benefits.” [Tax Policy Center, On The Distributional Effects Of Base-Broadening Income Tax Reform, 8/1/12]Under Romney's Plan, If Tax Rates Were Cut 20% Across The Board And Deductions For The Middle Class Were Cut By 58% -- The Limitation Of The Exclusion For Social Security Benefits Would Result In An Average Tax Increase Of $458.?In 2010, the average tax benefit from untaxed Social Security benefits was $987. Because Romney cuts taxes across the board by 20%, the value of the tax benefit would be $789. If Romney cuts deductions by 58% for those making less than $200,000, that means he would be reducing the average tax benefit from the exclusion from $789 to $331, the equivalent of a $458 tax increase.2010: The Average Benefit Received From Untaxed Social Security Benefits Was $987. In 2010, there were 29,239,000 income tax returns with untaxed Social Security and Railroad Retirement Benefits from individuals making $200,000 or less – for a total of and $28,861,000,000 in total benefits. That means the average benefit was $987. [Joint Committee on Taxation, Estimates Of Federal Tax Expenditures For Fiscal Years 2011-2015, Table 3 – Distribution by Income Class of Selected Individual Tax Expenditure Items, at 2010 Rates and 2010 Income Levels, p. 51, 1/17/12]Romney Proposed Cutting All Marginal Tax Rates By 20 Percent. [Tax Policy Center, The Romney Plan (updated), 3/1/12]Tax Policy Center: Assuming Romney Pays For His Tax Plan By Limiting Deductions Would Require Eliminating 58 Percent Of Total Tax Deductions For Households Making Less Than $200,000. [Tax Policy Center, On The Distributional Effects Of Base-Broadening Income Tax Reform, p. 6, 8/1/12]…AND THIS WOULD BE THE FIRST TIME EVER THAT SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFITS WERE TAXED FOR SENIORS MAKING LESS THAN $32,000Social Security Benefits Have Never Been Taxed For Married Couples Filing Jointed Who Earn A Combined Income Of $32,000 Per Year. “Before 1984, Social Security benefits were exempt from taxation. Today, those with higher incomes must pay personal income tax on their Social Security benefits (see IRS Publication 915, Social Security and Equivalent Railroad Retirement Benefits, or Social Security Administration 2009). Those with less than $25,000 of ‘combined income’ per year for a single person (including heads of household, usually unmarried people with dependents) or $32,000 per year for a married couple filing jointly do not need to pay any tax on their Social Security benefits.” [Urban Institute, Program on Retirement Policy, Changing the Income Tax Treatment of Social Security Benefits, accessed 9/20/12]Social Security: Ryan Was A Leading Advocate For Social Security PrivatizationEARLIER THIS MONTH, RYAN ON SOCIAL SECURITY PRIVATIZATION: “WHAT I’VE ALWAYS AGREED IS LET YOUNGER AMERICANS HAVE A VOLUNTARY CHOICE OF MAKING THEIR MONEY WORK FASTER FOR THEM WITHIN THE SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM”Ryan Admitted That He Worked With Bush To Try And Privatize Social Security And Said “I’ve Always Agreed Is Let Younger Americans Have A Voluntary Choice Of Making Their Money Work Faster For Them Within The Social Security System.”?RADDATZ: “You were one of the few lawmakers to stand with President Bush when he was seeking to partially privatize Social Security.” RYAN: “For younger people. What we said then, and what I’ve always agreed is let younger Americans have a voluntary choice of making their money work faster for them within the Social Security system.”?[Vice-Presidential Debate,?10/11/12]ROMNEY AND RYAN SUPPORTED BUSH’S PLAN TO PRIVATIZE SOCIAL SECURITYRomney Supported Bush’s Privatization Plan For Social Security Saying “That Works.”? Romney said, “[T]he president said let’s have private accounts and take that surplus money that’s being gathered now in Social Security and put that into private accounts. That works.”? [Fox News Debate, 10/21/07]Romney Praised Private Accounts For Social Security Recipients Calling Them “A Big Plus.” “Republican Mitt Romney yesterday praised the notion of personal accounts for Social Security recipients, a key aspect of the Social Security reform plan of President Bush that never made it out of Congress. Romney said it would be a good idea to use the Social Security trust fund to allow personal accounts, which could earn higher rates of return for beneficiaries. ‘Personal accounts would be a big plus,’ Romney said at the New Hampshire Institute of Art yesterday afternoon.” [Union Leader, 6/7/07]Ryan Praised President Bush’s Call For Private Accounts In Social Security In 2005 State Of The Union. “I’m also glad the President talked about why it’s crucial to reform Social Security now so the program will be able to help our children have a more secure retirement, while at the same time honoring its promise to seniors and those close to retirement. He needed to communicate that this will not affect today’s seniors, and he needed to show how this will help younger workers build savings for their retirement.” [Rep. Paul Ryan press release, 2/2/05]Ryan Flew On Air Force One With Bush To Milwaukee Social Security Privatization Event. “Bush spoke with a reporter as he flew to Milwaukee for his 32nd Social Security event this year. … Bush was accompanied on Air Force One by one GOP congressman from the state, Janesville’s Paul Ryan, who has been an active player in the congressional debate and a vocal advocate for personal accounts. Ryan’s fellow Wisconsin Republicans, who were not present Thursday, have been non-committal about Bush’s proposals.” Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 5/20/05]Ryan Held 35 Listening Sessions In 12 Days To Sell Private Accounts. “Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) spent his holiday discovering that President Bush’s idea of adding personal accounts to Social Security can be as hard to sell back home as it is in Washington. Ryan, who will help write the legislation as a member of the Ways and Means subcommittee on Social Security and is a longtime proponent of changing the popular government retirement program, is pushing the White House idea to farmers and factory workers throughout his district in the southeastern corner of the dairy state, with 35 ‘listening sessions’ in 12 days.” [Washington Post, 2/22/05]RYAN CREATED HIS OWN PLAN WHICH WENT SO FAR BUSH ADMINISTRATION OFFICIALS CALLED “IRRESPONSIBLE”2005: Ryan Reintroduced Bill Mirroring His 2004 Social Security Privatization Plan. “Wisconsin’s First District Rep. Paul Ryan is reintroducing legislation today to put Social Security on solid footing for the future and ensure that the program will help future generations achieve a more secure retirement, as it has for past and present retirees. This bill - the Social Security Personal Savings Guarantee and Prosperity Act - closely resembles Social Security reform legislation that Ryan introduced last year. Sen. Sununu of New Hampshire is introducing an identical measure in the U.S. Senate today.” [Rep. Paul Ryan press release, 4/20/05]Ryan: “I’ve Actually Proposed A Bill Along With Senator John Sununu On Fixing Social Security Once And For All, Making It Solvent For The Future, And Creating Personal Retirement Accounts.” [Paul Ryan, C-SPAN, 3/9/05]Ryan Sponsored Legislation With Sen. John Sununu “That Would Allow Even Bigger Accounts Than Bush Has Proposed.” “They include Sen. John E. Sununu (R-N.H.) and Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), sponsors of legislation that would allow even bigger accounts than Bush has proposed.” [Los Angeles Times, 3/6/05]Ryan’s Plan Diverted A “Considerably Larger” Percentage Of The Social Security Tax To Private Accounts. “The ultimate private-account plan belongs to Peter J. Ferrara, a longtime advocate of Social Security's partial privatization. Under Ferrara's approach, adopted by Sen. John E. Sununu (R-N.H.) and Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), and also by such activists as former House speaker Newt Gingrich and conservative organizer Grover Norquist, personal accounts would average 6.4 percentage points of the 12.4 percent Social Security tax, considerably larger than Bush's proposed 4 percentage-point diversion.” [Washington Post, 2/24/05]Social Security Actuaries Found That Under The Ryan-Sununu Social Security Plan, The Treasury Would Have To Borrow An Additional $2.4 Trillion Over The First Ten Years Alone. “This analysis focuses on the large amount of general revenue transfers that the Ryan-Sununu plan would require. A related aspect of the plan is that it would sharply increase federal budget deficits, because very substantial amounts of federal revenue would be diverted from Social Security into private accounts, and that, in turn, would require the Treasury to borrow hefty sums in financial markets to finance the continued payment of Social Security benefits in the decades ahead. The Social Security actuaries found that under the Ryan-Sununu plan, the Treasury would have to borrow an additional $2.4 trillion (in current dollars) over the first ten years alone. The plan would increase the national debt (i.e., the debt held by the public) every year for at least the next 75 years. Increased deficits and debt would be avoided only if Congress made very deep cuts in other programs and/or if corporate income tax receipts boomed in an unprecedented manner that is extremely unlikely to occur.” [Robert Greenstein and Richard Kogan, Center on Budget And Policy Priorities, 4/26/05]?George W. Bush’s Director Of Strategic Initiatives Peter Wehner: “You May Know That There Are There Is A Small Number Of Conservatives Who Prefer To Push Only For Investment Accounts And Make No Effort To Adjust Benefits… That’s A Bad Idea.” “You may know that there is a small number of conservatives who prefer to push only for investment accounts and make no effort to adjust benefits -- therefore making no effort to address this fundamental structural problem. In my judgment, that's a bad idea. We simply cannot solve the Social Security problem with Personal Retirement Accounts alone. If the goal is permanent solvency and sustainability -- as we believe it should be --then Personal Retirements Accounts, for all their virtues, are insufficient to that task. And playing ‘kick the can’ is simply not the credo of this President. He wants to do what needs to be done for genuine repair of Social Security.” [Peter Wehner, White House Social Security Memo, 1/5/05]George W. Bush’s Director Of Strategic Initiatives Peter Wehner: “If We Borrow $1-2 Trillion To Cover Transition Costs For Personal Savings Accounts And Make Changes To Wage Indexing… Would Be Irresponsible. “If we duck our duty, it can have serious short-term economic consequences. Here's why. If we borrow $1-2 trillion to cover transition costs for personal savings accounts and make no changes to wage indexing, we will have borrowed trillions and will still confront more than $10 trillion in unfunded liabilities. This could easily cause an economic chain-reaction: the markets go south, interest rates go up, and the economy stalls out. To ignore the structural fiscal issues -- to wholly ignore the matter of the current system's benefit formula -- would be irresponsible.” [Peter Wehner, White House Social Security Memo, 1/5/05]RYAN PROPOSED TWO BUDGET PLANS THAT INCLUDED PRIVATIZATION OF SOCIAL SECURITY ROADMAP 2.0 CREATED PRIVATE ACCOUNTS FOR THOSE UNDER AGE 55, WITH EXISTING SYSTEM FOR THOSE 55 AND OLDEREzra Klein: Ryan Roadmap Would Privatize Social Security. “Social Security gets guaranteed, private accounts that CBO says will actually cost more than the present arrangement, further underscoring how ancillary the program is to our budget problem.” [Ezra Klein, Washington Post, 2/1/10]Ryan’s “Roadmap For America’s Future” Included Private Accounts For Social Security. “To meet this challenge and secure our fiscal future, I have introduced a comprehensive legislative plan called ‘A Roadmap for America's Future.’ … Social Security. Social Security will be preserved for current retirees and those 55 and older. My plan starts by ending the raid on the Social Security Trust Fund. Workers under 55 will have the voluntary option of investing over one-third of their current Social Security taxes into personal retirement accounts.” [Ryan op-ed, St. Paul Pioneer Press, 9/2/08]CBO: Ryan Budget Would Create Individual Accounts. According to CBO Analysis, under the Ryan Budget: Traditional retirement benefits would be reduced below those scheduled under current law for many workers who are age 55 or younger in 2011... A system of individual accounts would be established in 2012. In that year, workers who are age 55 or younger would be able to participate in voluntary individual accounts, funded with a portion of their payroll taxes. [Congressional Budget Office letter To Paul Ryan, 1/27/10]CBPP: Ryan’s Plan Would Divert Funds From Social Security into Private Accounts. A July 2010 report from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities analyzing Representative Paul Ryan’s ‘Roadmap for America’s Future’ included changes to Social Security including diverting large sums from Social Security to private accounts. ‘It also would divert substantial sums from the Social Security trust funds into private accounts and then maintain Social Security solvency by transferring funds to Social Security from the rest of the budget.’” [Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 7/07/10]Ryan Said He Left Social Security Privatization Out Of 2013 Ryan Budget Because It Was Too Easy To Attack. RYAN: “We both believe that if we put a Social Security plan out there it’d be too tempting for Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi to demagogue it just like they’re doing on Medicare, running all these “Mediscare” campaigns. We figured they would do that on Social Security and make it harder to get a Social Security agreement.” [Ryan statement, Peter G. Peterson Foundation 2011 Fiscal Summit, 5/25/11]Ryan Doubled Down On Social Security Private Accounts After 2008 Market Collapse. “Ryan says he hasn’t lost his zeal for the free-market system and, despite the losses in the stock market, continues to back a plan that would allow workers to invest part of their Social Security funds in private accounts. Under Ryan’s proposal, the government would guarantee those workers a certain return even if their investments lost value, meaning the government would have to make up the cost. ‘Over a person’s working period, the market will outperform Social Security,’ he said, adding that it will take some time for the markets to respond to the rescue provisions now being put in place.” [Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 10/9/08] HEALTH CAREPRO-POTUSToplinesPRESIDENT OBAMA SIGNED THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT INTO LAW TO VASTLY EXPAND HEALTH CARE ACCESS AND PROVIDE THE MIDDLE CLASS WITH THE SECURITY OF AFFORDABLE HEALTH INSURANCE The Affordable Care Act Provides All Americans Access To Affordable Health Care Coverage. “In 2014, all Americans – regardless of their health status – will have access to affordable coverage either through their employer or through new competitive marketplaces called Exchanges, and insurers will be prohibited from charging more or denying coverage to anyone based on the state of their health.” [, 12/09/11]The Affordable Care Act Will Enable An Additional 30 Million People To Gain Insurance. “CBO and JCT now estimate that the ACA, in comparison with prior law before the enactment of the ACA, will reduce the number of nonelderly people without health insurance coverage by 14 million in 2014 and by 29 million or 30 million in the latter part of the coming decade.” [Congressional Budget Office, 7/24/12]6.6 Million Young Adults Were Able To Sign Up For Coverage On Their Parent’s Insurance Including 3.1 Million Young Adults Who Would Have Been Uninsured Without The Law.?“6.6. million young adults were able to sign up for coverage on their parents’ plans, including 3.1 million young adults who would have been uninsured without the law.” [White House Blog,?06/27/12]?HEALTH CARE REFORM PROTECTS THE MIDDLE CLASS BY ENDING THE WORST INSURANCE COMPANY ABUSESUnder The Affordable Care Act, 25 Million Uninsured Non-Elderly Americans With Pre-Existing Conditions Cannot Be Denied Coverage, Charged Higher Premiums, Or Be Subject To Other Discriminatory Actions Starting In 2014. “Up to one in five non-elderly Americans with a pre-existing condition – 25 million individuals – is uninsured. ?Under the Affordable Care Act, starting in 2014, these Americans cannot be denied coverage, be charged significantly higher premiums, be subjected to an extended waiting period, or have their benefits curtailed by insurance companies.” [, Accessed 12/30/11]“The Parents Of Over 17.6 Million Children With Pre-Existing Conditions No Longer Have To Worry That Their Children Will Be Denied Coverage Because Of A Pre-Existing Condition.”? [White House, Accessed 9/3/12]Because of Health Care Reform, 105 Million Americans No Longer Have A Lifetime Limit On Their Insurance Policies. “Overall, we estimated that 70 million persons in large employer plans, 25 million persons in small employer plans, and 10 million persons with individually purchased health insurance had lifetime limits on their health benefits prior to the passage of the Affordable Care Act.? These 105 million Americans now enjoy improved coverage without lifetime limits.” [Department of Health & Human Services, March 2012]Under Health Care Reform, Insurance Companies Must Justify Any Rate Increase That Is 10 Percent Or Greater Before The Increase Takes Effect. “The Affordable Care Act creates a Rate Review program in your state to help protect individuals and small businesses from unreasonable health insurance rate increases. Starting on September 1, 2011, health insurers must justify any rate increase of 10% or more before the increase takes effect.” [, 10/07/11]In 2014, The Affordable Care Act Will Prevent Insurers From Charging Women Higher Premiums Than They Charge Men. “Before the law, women could be charged more for individual insurance policies simply because of their gender. A 22-year-old woman could be charged 150% the premium that a 22-year-old man paid. In 2014, insurers will not be able to charge women higher premiums than they charge men.” [, accessed 7/28/11] HEALTH CARE REFORM ENSURES AFFORDABLE HEALTH INSURANCE THE MIDDLE CLASS CAN RELY ONThe Affordable Care Act Accounts For The Largest Health Care Tax Cut In History For The Middle Class. “The?health reform legislation?signed into law by President Obama includes the largest health care tax cut in history for middle class families, helping to make insurance much more affordable for millions of families.” [White House, 04/13/10]The Affordable Care Act Will Lower Premiums By Nearly $2,000 Per Family Over 2010-2019. “The health reform legislation passed in March 2010 will introduce a range of payment and delivery system changes designed to achieve a significant slowing of health care cost growth. Most assessments of the new reform law have focused only on the federal budgetary impact. This updated analysis projects the effect of national reform on total national health expenditures and the insurance premiums that American families would likely pay. We estimate that, on net, the combination of provisions in the new law will reduce health care spending by $590 billion over 2010–2019 and lower premiums by nearly $2,000 per family. Moreover, the annual growth rate in national health expenditures could be slowed from 6.3 percent to 5.7 percent.” [Commonwealth Fund, May 2010]The Congressional Budget Office Has Estimated That On An Apples To Apples Basis, Premiums For Individuals Purchasing Through Health Insurance Exchanges Will Be 14 To 20 Percent Lower In 2016. “These Exchanges will offer individuals and workers in small businesses with a much greater choice of plans at more affordable rates – the same choice as members of Congress.?In fact, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has estimated that, on an apples-to-apples basis, premiums will be 14- 20 percent lower than they would be under current law in 2016 due to competition, lower insurance overhead, and increased pooling and purchasing power.” [Department of Health & Human Services, Press Release, 6/14/10]Consequences Of Repealing Obamacare—ShortREPEALING THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT WOULD MEAN THAT 89 MILLION AMERICANS COULD BE DENIED COVERAGE IF THEY HAVE A PRE-EXISTING CONDITION, MILLIONS OF YOUNG ADULTS WOULD LOSE COVERAGE, AND INSURANCE COMPANIES COULD CONTINUE CHARGING WOMEN MORE THAN MEN FOR THE SAME COVERAGEUnder The Affordable Care Act Beginning In 2014, Americans Cannot Be Denied Coverage If They Have A Pre-Existing Condition. “Up to one in five non-elderly Americans with a pre-existing condition – 25 million individuals – is uninsured. ?Under the Affordable Care Act, starting in 2014, these Americans cannot be denied coverage, be charged significantly higher premiums, be subjected to an extended waiting period, or have their benefits curtailed by insurance companies.” [, Accessed 12/30/11]Those With Non-Continuous Coverage Add Up To Roughly 89 Million Americans, Or 36 Percent Of The Population, Between Age 4 and 65. “89 million Americans had at least a single one-month gap in insurance coverage. They were not, in other words, continually insured. That works out to 36 percent of the population between age 4 and 65.” [Washington Post, Wonk Blog, 9/10/12]Over 3 Million Young Adults Gained Health Care Coverage Because Of The Provision Allowing Young Adults Under 26 To Remain On Their Parents’ Insurance. “New survey findings released today by the National Center for Health Statistics show that the extension of dependent health coverage up to age 26 continues to lead to greater rates of insurance coverage among young adults. This policy is one part of the Affordable Care Act, and it took effect for insurance plan renewals beginning on September 23, 2010. The new estimates show that from September 2010 to December 2011, the percentage of adults 19 to 25 with insurance coverage increased from 64.4% to 74.8%, which translates into over 3 million additional young adults with coverage.” [Department of Health and Human Services, 06/19/12]In 2014, Health Care Reform Will Prevent Insurers From Charging Women Higher Premiums Than They Charge Men. “Before the law, women could be charged more for individual insurance policies simply because of their gender. A 22-year-old woman could be charged 150% the premium that a 22-year-old man paid. In 2014, insurers will not be able to charge women higher premiums than they charge men.” [, accessed 7/28/11] The Affordable Care Act Improves Efficiency In The Health Care SystemTHE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT LOWERS COSTS IN THE HEALTH CARE SYSTEM BY IMPROVING EFFICIENCY AND CHANGING INCENTIVES FOR PROVIDERSTHE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT TAKES STEPS TO IMPROVE HEALTH CARE AND LOWER COSTS BY CHANGING INCENTIVES FOR DOCTORS AND OTHER PROVIDERS IN THE HEALTH CARE SYSTEMBloomberg: “The Institute of Medicine…Cited More Than 60 Provisions In The Health Law That May Help Improve Care.” “The Institute of Medicine, known for generating peer- reviewed reports that serve as fodder for debates on issues such as medical errors and vaccines, cited more than 60 provisions in the health law that may help improve health care, including incentives for doctors and hospitals to coordinate services.” [Bloomberg, 9/6/12]The Affordable Care Act Includes Provisions To Reduce Costs And Improve The Quality Of Patient Care. “Medicare provisions in the ACA include the following… Some provisions are designed to reduce costs and improve the quality of patient care for elderly and disabled beneficiaries; this includes incentives to reduce preventable hospital readmissions and establish accountable care organizations.” [Kaiser Family Foundation, 9/10/12]CBS News: The Law “Wants To Shift Medicare Away From Paying For Sheer Numbers Of Tests And Procedures To A System That Rewards Quality.” “The law puts the onus for controlling costs on the hospital industry, the medical profession, drug companies and other service providers. Obama wants to shift Medicare away from paying for sheer numbers of tests and procedures to a system that rewards quality care.” [CBS News, 9/17/12]The Centers For Medicare And Medicaid Services Is Putting Into Place Payment Methods That Reward Quality Of Care Delivered With Hospitals Beginning To See Their Payments Tied To Their Performance On Quality Metrics. “CMS is also putting into place payment methods that reward quality of care delivered, not just the quantity of services provided.? This year, hospitals will begin to see their payments tied to their performance on quality metrics, including patients' experience of care.” [Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, 04/23/12]Associated Press: The Affordable Care Act Funded Partnership For Patients, Which Helps Hospitals Improve Patient Safety.? “Hospitals are rife with infections and opportunities for medical mistakes…The idea: Design patient safety to be more like a car's dashboard, which automatically signals drivers when the oil needs changing or if a passenger forgot to buckle up, or like the countdown systems that make sure no step is missed when a satellite is launched….Numerous programs are under way to improve patient safety. Among them is the government's Partnership for Patients, funded by $1 billion from the new health care law, that is helping hospitals adopt proven safety strategies. [Associated Press, 8/28/12]The Affordable Care Act Promotes Accountable Care Organizations, Which Are “A Powerful Incentive To Do Things Differently” In Keeping Costs Low While Keeping Patients Healthy. ? “Advocate runs one of the nation’s first and largest accountable care organizations, a new kind of health care practice gaining momentum in part because of the Affordable Care Act signed into law two years ago by President Obama. A.C.O.’s, as they are known, are collections of medical providers who band together under one business umbrella…include[ing] primary care doctors, specialists, social workers, pharmacists and nurses….Instead of an insurance company or the government reimbursing each provider for each service provided to each patient, the A.C.O. is paid simply to care for a group of patients.? If the organization can reduce the cost of caring for the patients while maintaining their health, it gets to keep and divide up some of the savings — a powerful incentive to do things differently.”? [New York Times, 3/13/12]The Affordable Care Act Began As A Republican IdeaTHE HEALTH CARE LAW BEGAN AS A REPUBLICAN IDEATHE CONSERVATIVE HERITAGE FOUNDATION WAS THE SOURCE OF THE HEALTH INSURANCE EXCHANGE CONCEPTPolitifact Rated President Obama’s Claim That “Heritage Foundation Is Source Of Health Exchange Idea” “Mostly True.” “there's little doubt that Heritage has been a consistent and eager promoter of the exchange idea, especially during the effort to design a new health care system for Massachusetts…. In another paper, titled, ‘The Rationale for a Statewide Health Insurance Exchange,’ and published on Oct. 5, 2006, Heritage scholar Robert Moffit wrote that ‘the best option is a health insurance market exchange.’… So we conclude that the president's statement qualifies as Mostly True.” [Politifact, 3/30/10]Robert Moffit, Heritage Foundation Report Title: “The Rationale For A Statewide Health Insurance Exchange.” “State-level health insurance exchanges would increase health insurance coverage, significantly lower prices in the individual coverage market, give individuals and families access to more choice, allow coverage portability, and increase employers' flexibility in offering health benefits…. [A] health insurance exchange is the best way for individuals and families to secure personal and portable health insurance….” [Heritage Foundation, 10/5/06]THE INDIVIDUAL MANDATE TO BUY INSURANCE WAS ORIGINALLY A REPUBLICAN IDEANew York Times: The Mandate “Was Originally A Conservative Republican Idea As An Alternative To National Health Insurance.” “In fairness to the Obama administration, at the time the Affordable Care Act was proposed there was an overwhelming legal consensus that the mandate was constitutional. The idea has been around for decades — it was originally a conservative Republican idea as an alternative to national health insurance.” [New York Times, 4/2/12]Fox News: The Idea For An Insurance Mandate First Appeared In A 1989 Proposal By The Heritage Foundation And Was Later Proposed By Republican Lawmakers In 1993.“The mandate, requiring every American to purchase health insurance, appeared in a 1989 published proposal by Stuart M. Butler of the conservative Heritage Foundation called ‘Assuring Affordable Health Care for All Americans,’ which included a provision to ‘mandate all households to obtain adequate insurance.’ The Heritage Foundation "substantially revised" its proposal four years later, according to a 1994 analysis by the Congressional Budget Office. But the idea of an individual health insurance mandate later appeared in two bills introduced by Republican lawmakers in 1993, according to the non-partisan research group . Among the supporters of the bills were senators Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, and Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, who today oppose the mandate under current law.” [Fox News, 6/28/12]TAX CREDITS TO HELP WITH THE COST OF COVERAGE WERE ORIGINALLY A REPUBLICAN IDEAFox News: Tax Credits Were Proposed As Part Of Republican Health Reform Efforts. “In the early 1970s, President?Richard Nixon?favored a mandate that employers provide insurance. In the 1990s,?the Heritage Foundation, a leading conservative think tank, embraced an individual requirement. Not anymore. ‘The idea of an individual mandate as an alternative to single-payer was a Republican idea,’ said health economist Mark Pauly of the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School. In 1991, he published a paper that explained how a mandate could be combined with tax credits -- two ideas that are now part of Obama's law. Pauly's paper was well-received -- by the?George H.W. Bush?administration.” [Fox News, 3/27/10]AMA, AHA, AND AARP ENDORSED THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACTTHE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT WAS ENDORSED BY THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, AMERICAN HOSPITAL ASSOCIATION, AND AARPThe AARP Supported The Passage Of Health Reform. “AARP Board Chair Bonnie M. Cramer, M.S.W., announced the Association’s support for health insurance reform legislation containing key reform provisions that will improve health care for older Americans and their families…. Also today, AARP CEO A. Barry Rand sent a letter to every member of the House of Representatives, urging them to put the health of Americans age 50-plus first and vote ‘yes’ on the legislative package.” [AARP, Press Release, 3/19/10]The American Hospital Association Supported The Passage Of Health Reform. “The American Hospital Association (AHA) today called for passage of the historic health reform measure being considered this weekend in the U.S. House of Representatives. The AHA has long been committed to meaningful health care reform and, in a letter to Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), reaffirmed its support for moving health reform efforts forward.” [American Hospital Association, Press Release, March 2010]The American Medical Association Supported The Passage Of Health Reform. “After careful review and consideration, the Board of Trustees of the American Medical Association (AMA) supports passage of the health system reform legislation under consideration in the House as a step forward in the journey to provide health care coverage for all Americans.” [Letter to Speaker Nancy Pelosi From Dr. J. James Rohack, President of the American Medical Association, 3/19/10]Pushback: President Obama Should Have Focused On The Economy, Not Health Care ReformFROM DAY ONE, PRESIDENT OBAMA’S FOCUS HAS BEEN ON MAKING SURE WE HAD A STRONG ECONOMYUNDER PRESIDENT OBAMA’S LEADERSHIP, THE ECONOMY HAS GONE FROM LOSING 800,000 JOBS A MONTH TO ADDING?5.2 MILLION? PRIVATE SECTOR JOBS OVER THE LAST 31 MONTHSWhen President Obama Took Office The Economy Was Losing 800,000 Jobs A Month. [Bureau of Labor Statistics, accessed 9/4/12]The U.S. Economy Has Added 5.2 Million Private Sector Jobs In The Last 31 Months.?In February 2010, the U.S. economy employed 106,773,000 people in the private sector. In September 2012, the U.S. economy employed 111,952,000 people in the private sector, gaining 5,179,000 jobs over the 31 month period, including the CES preliminary benchmark revision to March 2012 data. [Current Employment Statistics, Bureau Of Labor Statistics, accessed?10/5/12; CES Preliminary Benchmark Announcement, Bureau Of Labor Statistics, 9/27/12]?Private Sector Job Growth Has Continued For 31 Consecutive Months. [Bureau of Labor Statistics, accessed?10/5/12]?PRESIDENT OBAMA SIGNED THE RECOVERY ACT, WHICH HELPED SLOW THE PACE OF JOB LOSSES AND STAVED OFF A SECOND GREAT DEPRESSIONCenter On Budget And Policy Priorities: The Pace Of Monthly Job Losses Slowed Dramatically Soon After President Obama And Congress Enacted The Recovery Act In February 2009. “The pace of monthly job losses slowed dramatically soon after President Obama and Congress enacted the Recovery Act in February 2009. The trend in job growth in 2010 was obscured by the rapid ramp-up and subsequent decline in government hiring for the 2010 Census (which is now over), but private employers added nearly 4.4 million jobs to their payrolls in the last 28 months, an average of 156,000 jobs a month. Private employers added 84,000 jobs to their payrolls in June, while losses in federal and state government, as well as local education employment held the total payroll employment gain to 80,000 jobs.”[Center On Budget And Policy Priorities, 7/6/12]USA Today: “Eighteen Months Later, The Consensus Among Economists Is That The Stimulus Worked In Staving Off A Rerun Of The 1930s.” “Liberal?economists such as?New York?Times?columnist?Paul Krugman?complained that the massive program should have been larger and was marred by the inclusion of excessive tax cuts that would have a less-immediate impact on job creation. Republicans derided the legislation as wasteful spending that would add to ballooning government debt. Eighteen months later, the consensus among economists is that the stimulus worked in staving off a rerun of the 1930s.” ?[USA Today, 8/30/2010]PRESIDENT OBAMA’S AUTO RESCUE SAVED OVER 1.1 MILLION JOBS IN 2009Center For Automotive Research: The Auto Industry Rescue Saved Over 1.1 Million Jobs In 2009. According to a report on the? difference between orderly bankruptcy proceedings assisted by government-provided debtor-in-possession financing versus an uncontrolled bankruptcy for American automakers, the Center for Automotive Research estimates that emergency loans to American automakers saved 1.14 million jobs in 2009. [Center for Automotive Research Report, 11/7/10]A TYPICAL FAMILY MAKING $50,000 A YEAR HAS SEEN THEIR TAXES CUT BY $3,600 DURING PRESIDENT OBAMA’S FIRST TERM IN OFFICE THROUGH THE MAKING WORK PAY TAX CREDIT AND THE PAYROLL TAX CUTA Typical Family Making $50,000 A Year Has Seen Their Taxes Cut By $3,600 Over The Last Four Years Due To The Making Work Pay Tax Credit And The Payroll Tax Cut. “A typical family making $50,000 a year has seen their taxes cut by $3,600 over the last four years, $800 in each of 2009 and 2010 due to the Making Work Pay tax credit and $1,000 in each of 2011 and 2012 due to the payroll tax cut.” [White House National Economic Council, July 2012]Pushback: Obamacare Is A Government Takeover Of Health CareTHE HEALTH CARE LAW RELIES ON THE PRIVATE INSURANCE MARKET, AND THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION IS GIVING STATES THE FLEXIBILITY TO IMPLEMENT ITINDEPENDENT FACT-CHECKERS HAVE DISPUTED THE CLAIM THAT THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT WAS A GOVERNMENT TAKEOVER OF HEALTH CAREThe Claim That President Obama’s Health Care Reform Was A “Government Takeover Of Health Care” Was The Tampa Bay Times Politifact’s 2010 Lie Of The Year.?“In the spring of 2009, a Republican strategist settled on a brilliant and powerful attack line for President Barack Obama's ambitious plan to overhaul America's health insurance system. Frank Luntz, a consultant famous for his phraseology, urged GOP leaders to call it a ‘government takeover….’ PolitiFact editors and reporters have chosen ‘government takeover of health care’ as the 2010 Lie of the Year.” [Tampa Bay Times, Politifact,?12/16/10]?Tampa Bay Times Politifact Rated The Claim That The Affordable Care Act Puts The Government Between The Patient And Doctor “False.” “For three years, Republicans have insisted that the health care reform bill amounts to a government takeover of health care. Romney’s statement that the law puts government between you and your doctor is another iteration of that claim… But statements like Romney’s overstate the level of government control in the law and ignore state flexibility in setting insurance standards. Romney’s campaign offered no evidence to back up this claim. We rule this statement False.” [Tampa Bay Times, Politifact, 6/28/12]: The Federal Government “Isn’t ‘Taking Ownership’” Of Health Care; Insurance Will Provided By Private Companies And Care Will Still Be Provided By Private Doctors. “But as we’ve said time and again, the government isn’t "taking ownership" of health care. Insurance will still be provided by private companies, and care will still be provided by private doctors.” [, 04/01/10]THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT STRENGTHENS PATIENT CHOICEThe Affordable Care Act’s New Guidelines Allow Patients To Choose Any Available Participating Primary Care Provider In Or Any Available Participating Pediatrician For Their Children In Their Health Plan’s Provider Network.?“The new rules permit you to choose any available participating primary care provider as your doctor and to choose any available participating pediatrician as your child’s?primary care doctor.”?[,?09/23/2010]?Health Care Reform Assures Women The Right To See An OB-GYN Without Having To First Obtain A Referral. “No health plan barriers to OB-GYN services: The new rules also prohibit health plans from requiring a referral from a primary care provider before you can seek coverage for obstetrical or gynecological (OB-GYN) care from a participating OB-GYN specialist.” [, 9/23/10]THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION IS GIVING STATES FLEXIBILITY TO IMPLEMENT HEALTH CARE REFORMThe Obama Administration Has Given States Flexibility To Decide What “Essential Benefits” Health Insurers Must Offer Starting In 2014. “States will be given wide latitude to decide what ‘essential benefits’ insurers must offer in their health policies come 2014, the Obama administration said Friday in a move that pushes off final federal rules on the topic until an unspecified date.” [Kaiser Health News, 12/16/11]The Obama Administration Gave States Broad Flexibility In Designing Their Insurance Exchanges. “The final shape for a key part of the health law — the state-based marketplaces where people will shop for insurance coverage — became clearer Monday in rules issued by the Obama administration. Under the long-awaited rules, states will have broad flexibility to design their insurance marketplaces, which are set to begin operation in 2014.” [Washington Post, 03/12/12]Pushback: The Affordable Care Act Does Not Kill JobsSHORTMULTIPLE ANALYSTS AND EXPERTS HAVE SAID THAT THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT WILL NOT HAVE A NEGATIVE IMPACT ON HIRING AND THE : Claims That Obamacare Will Hurt Small Businesses Are “Off Base.” “Claims about the alleged devastation of small business are also off base. The fact is, businesses with fewer than 50 workers are exempt from the requirement to provide coverage, or pay a penalty to the government. Furthermore, some small businesses with fewer than 25 employees are already getting tax credits under the new law to help defray the cost of providing worker coverage.” [, 02/21/12]Center For Budget And Policy Priorities: Claims That The Affordable Care Act Is A Job-Killer Are “Not Supported By Evidence.”?“House Republican claims that the legislation (the Affordable Care Act) is a ‘job-killer’ imply that health reform measures will be a major drag on the economy because they will allegedly increase employers’ costs. But these claims are not supported by evidence, and they are at odds with leading non-partisan assessments of how health reform legislation will affect the economy and labor markets.”?[Center On Budget and Policy Priorities,?01/06/11]Tampa Bay Times Politifact: The Republican Assertion That Health Care Reform Is A Job Killer Is False. “Republicans have used the "job-killing" claim hundreds of times -- so often that they used the phrase in the name of the bill. It implies that job losses will be one of the most significant effects of the law. But they have flimsy evidence to back it up. The phrase suggests a massive decline in employment, but the data doesn't support that. The Republican evidence is extrapolated from a report that was talking about a reduction in the labor supply rather than the loss of jobs, or based on measures that weren't included in the final health care law. We rate the statement False.” [Tampa Bay Times, Politifact, 01/19/11]The Director Of The Nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office Disputed That The Affordable Care Act Hurt Employment And Is Having A Significant Impact On The Economy Today.?“On Wednesday, Douglas W. Elmendorf, director of the Congressional Budget Office, wasn’t eager to enter that fray – but he disputed the view pushed mostly by Republicans that the health care law has, to this point, hurt employment. Speaking to reporters at a Christian Science Monitor breakfast on Wednesday, Mr. Elmendorf said, ‘We don’t think that the health care law is having a significant impact on the economy today.’” [New York Times, The Caucus Blog,?6/13/12]LONGTHE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT DOES NOT HURT THE ECONOMY BUT WOULD INSTEAD LOWER COSTS FOR SMALL BUSINESSES MULTIPLE ANALYSTS AND EXPERTS HAVE SAID THAT THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT WILL NOT HAVE A NEGATIVE IMPACT ON HIRING AND THE : Claims That Obamacare Will Hurt Small Businesses Are “Off Base.” “Claims about the alleged devastation of small business are also off base. The fact is, businesses with fewer than 50 workers are exempt from the requirement to provide coverage, or pay a penalty to the government. Furthermore, some small businesses with fewer than 25 employees are already getting tax credits under the new law to help defray the cost of providing worker coverage.” [, 02/21/12]Center For Budget And Policy Priorities: Claims That The Affordable Care Act Is A Job-Killer Are “Not Supported By Evidence.”?“House Republican claims that the legislation (the Affordable Care Act) is a ‘job-killer’ imply that health reform measures will be a major drag on the economy because they will allegedly increase employers’ costs. But these claims are not supported by evidence, and they are at odds with leading non-partisan assessments of how health reform legislation will affect the economy and labor markets.”?[Center On Budget and Policy Priorities,?01/06/11]Tampa Bay Times Politifact: The Republican Assertion That Health Care Reform Is A Job Killer Is False. “Republicans have used the "job-killing" claim hundreds of times -- so often that they used the phrase in the name of the bill. It implies that job losses will be one of the most significant effects of the law. But they have flimsy evidence to back it up. The phrase suggests a massive decline in employment, but the data doesn't support that. The Republican evidence is extrapolated from a report that was talking about a reduction in the labor supply rather than the loss of jobs, or based on measures that weren't included in the final health care law. We rate the statement False.” [Tampa Bay Times, Politifact, 01/19/11]The Director Of The Nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office Disputed That The Affordable Care Act Hurt Employment And Is Having A Significant Impact On The Economy Today.?“On Wednesday, Douglas W. Elmendorf, director of the Congressional Budget Office, wasn’t eager to enter that fray – but he disputed the view pushed mostly by Republicans that the health care law has, to this point, hurt employment. Speaking to reporters at a Christian Science Monitor breakfast on Wednesday, Mr. Elmendorf said, ‘We don’t think that the health care law is having a significant impact on the economy today.’” [New York Times, The Caucus Blog,?6/13/12]OBAMACARE EXEMPTS SMALL BUSINESSES FROM THE INSURANCE COVERAGE REQUIREMENTSThe Affordable Care Act Specifically Exempts Small Businesses From Any Employer Responsibility Requirements. “The law specifically exempts all firms that have fewer than 50 employees – 96 percent of all firms in the United States or 5.8 million out of 6 million total firms – from any employer responsibility requirements. These 5.8 million firms employ nearly 34 million workers. More than 96 percent of firms with 50 or more employees already offer health insurance to their workers. Less than 0.2 percent of all firms (about 10,000 out of 6 million) may face employer responsibility requirements. Many firms that do not currently offer coverage will be more likely to do so because of lower premiums and wider choices in the Exchange.[White House, accessed 6/12/12]Small Businesses With 50 Or Fewer Employers Are Exempt From Penalties On Organizations That Do Not Offer Coverage. “Beginning in 2014, organizations with more than 50 employees that don’t offer affordable coverage will pay a penalty… Employers with 50 or fewer employees would be exempt from these penalties.” [Wall Street Journal, 3/25/10]FOR MANY SMALL BUSINESSES, OBAMACARE PROVIDES TAX CREDITS THAT WILL COVER UP TO 50 PERCENT OF PREMIUM COSTS BEGINNING IN 2014The Affordable Care Act Provides Tax Credits To Help Small Business Owners Afford The Cost Of Covering Their Employees And Is Targeted To Businesses With Low- And Moderate-Income Workers. “This new credit helps small businesses and small tax-exempt organizations afford the cost of covering their employees and is specifically targeted for those with low- and moderate-income workers. The credit is designed to encourage small employers to offer health insurance coverage for the first time or maintain coverage they already have. In general, the credit is available to small employers that pay at least half the cost of single coverage for their employees.” [IRS Fact Sheet, 4/19/2012] The Small Business Health Care Credit Currently Covers Up To 35 Percent Of Small Business’s Health Insurance Costs And Will Increase To Cover Up To 50 Percent In 2014. “For tax years 2010 through 2013, the maximum credit is 35 percent for small business employers and 25 percent for small tax-exempt employers such as charities. An enhanced version of the credit will be effective beginning Jan. 1, 2014. Additional information about the enhanced version will be added to as it becomes available. In general, on Jan. 1, 2014, the rate will increase to 50 percent and 35 percent, respectively.” [IRS Fact Sheet, 2/14/2012]The President’s Tax Reform Framework Proposes Expanding The Health Care Tax Credit Created In The Affordable Care Act To Businesses With Up To 50 Workers. “Reform and expand the health insurance tax credit for small businesses. This credit, created in the Affordable Care Act, helps small businesses afford the cost of health insurance. This reform would allow small businesses with up to 50 workers to qualify for the credit (up from 25), provide a more generous phase-out schedule, and substantially simplify and streamline the tax credit’s rules.” [The President’s Framework For Corporate Tax Reform, February 2012]THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT WILL LOWER PREMIUM COSTS FOR SMALL BUSINESSES For Small Firms, The Average Employer Premium Contribution Per Person Covered By Employer-Sponsored Insurance Would Fall 7.9 Percent Because Of Health Care Reform. “The average employer premium contribution per person covered by insurance sponsored by small firms would fall by 7.9 percent, a significant reduction in premiums.” [The Urban Institute, 01/2011]Under The Affordable Care Act, It Is Estimated That Health Care Spending By Small Businesses Will Decrease 8.7 Percent. “Health care spending by small firms (100 or fewer employees) would decline by 8.7 percent under the ACA.” [The Urban Institute, 01/2011]Small Businesses Could, On Average, Save Up To $350 Per Family Policy Because Of The Lower Costs Associated With Insurance Exchanges. “Small businesses, on average, could save up to $350 per family policy due to lower costs in the Exchanges.” [, 01/28/11]Pushback: The Individual Mandate Is A Tax On The Middle ClassWHAT MITT ROMNEY NOW CALLS A “TAX” IS ACTUALLY A PENALTY FOR THE 1 PERCENT OF PEOPLE WHO CAN AFFORD INSURANCE BUT REFUSE TO BUY ITRoughly 1.8 Percent Of The U.S. Population Will Be Required To Pay A Penalty For Being Uninsured. [Calculation Based On The Congressional Budget Office, 9/19/12 And The Census Bureau, Accessed 05/16/2012]According To The Congressional Budget Office, About 6 Million Are Projected To Pay The Penalty For Being Uninsured In 2016. [Congressional Budget Office, 9/19/12]The Census Bureau Projects The United States Population To Reach Approximately 328,677,531 In 2016. [Census Bureau, U.S. Population Projections, ?2008]Associated Press: Those Facing Penalties From The Law Is “Only A Sliver Of The Population”—“Most People Will Not Have To Worry About The Requirement.” “That's still only a sliver of the population, given that more than 150 million people currently are covered by employer plans…. Most people will not have to worry about the requirement since they already have coverage through employers, government programs like Medicare or by buying their own policies.” [Associated Press, 9/20/12]THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT’S TAX CREDITS AND SUBSIDIES ARE NEARLY 12 TIMES LARGER THAN THE PENALTY ASSOCIATED WITH THE MANDATEWashington Post Fact Check: The Total Amount Of Tax Credits And Subsidies Provided To Individuals In the Affordable Care Act Is Nearly 12 Times Larger Than The Penalty Associated With The Mandate. “The CBO estimated that the government will provide $630 billion in?tax credits and subsidies?for insurance within the next 11 years, compared to just $54 billion in?penalties?for uninsured individuals over the same period…. credits and subsidies represent nearly 12 times the amount of ‘tax’ through the penalty.” [Washington Post, Fact Checker Blog,?7/6/12]Pushback: The Medical Device Tax Would Encourage Companies To Shift Jobs OverseasTHE MEDICAL DEVICE TAX DOES NOT CREATE INCENTIVES TO SHIP JOBS OVERSEAS AND WILL NOT BE HARMFUL TO MANUFACTURERSINDEPENDENT FACT-CHECKERS HAVE FOUND THAT STUDIES SUGGESTING THAT THE MEDICAL DEVICE TAX WILL BE HARMFUL TO MANUFACTURERS ARE BASED ON FLAWED ASSUMPTIONSAn Industry-Commissioned Study Claiming That The Medical Device Tax Would Cost US Jobs And Billions In Revenue Was Not Credible And Based On Flawed Assumptions. “An industry-commissioned study concluded that ‘under reasonable assumptions,’ the tax would cost more than 43,000 U.S. jobs and shave as much as $6.7 billion off annual revenue of $116 billion. A Bloomberg Government analysis finds the study is not credible. Its assumptions are flawed, in part because it exaggerates the degree to which spending on health is affected by price increases….The device industry’s case against the levy was published last September by the Advanced Medical Technology Association, or AdvaMed, a Washington-based trade group.” [Bloomberg Businessweek, 03/22/12]The Study’s “Reasonable Assumptions” Conflict With Economic Research, Overstate Companies’ Incentives To Move Jobs Offshore,” And Ignore The Positive Effects Of The Law. “Yet AdvaMed’s ‘reasonable assumptions’ conflict with economic research, overstate companies’ incentives to move jobs offshore, and ignore the positive effect of new demand created by the law.” [Bloomberg Businessweek, 03/22/12]Knoxville News Sentinel Politifact: Some Assumptions Made By The Manhattan Institute Study Have Been Questioned, And The Bill’s Provisions Give “Little Reason” To Conclude There Would be Off-Shoring. “Some of the assumptions made by The Manhattan Institute study have been questioned, and the provisions of the bill itself mean there’s little reason to suspect there would be much off-shoring based on the excise tax.” [Knoxville News Sentinel, Politifact, 6/7/12]THE MEDICAL DEVICE TAX IN THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT DOES NOT ENCOURAGE MEDICAL DEVICE MANUFACTURERS TO SHIP JOBS OVERSEASThe Medical Device Tax Creates No Incentive For Manufacturers To Ship Production Overseas Since The Tax Applies To Both Imported And Domestically-Produced Devices. “Despite claims to the contrary, the excise tax creates no incentive whatever for medical device manufacturers to move production overseas. The tax applies to imported as well as domestically produced devices. Thus, sales of medical devices in the United States will be equally subject to the tax whether they are produced here or abroad, and the tax will not make imported devices any more attractive to domestic purchasers.” [Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 05/31/12]Medical Devices Produced In The United States For Exports Are Exempt From The Medical Device Tax. “In addition, devices produced in the United States for export are exempt from the tax, so it will not reduce the competitiveness of U.S.-made devices in international markets.” [Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 05/31/12]THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT WILL INCREASE REVENUES FOR MEDICAL DEVICE MANUFACTURERSThe Affordable Care Act’s The Extension Of Health Coverage To More Than 30 Million Americans Will Increase Demand For Medical Devices And Increase Medical Device Manufacturers’ Revenues. “By extending health coverage to 33 million more Americans, or by more than 10 percent, the Affordable Care Act will increase the demand for medical devices and the revenue of device manufacturers….However, the substantial expansion of health coverage will increase the number of elective medical procedures performed on those who were previously uninsured and, in turn, the use of medical devices.” [Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 05/31/12]Bloomberg: Evidence Supports The Notion That The Device Tax Could Be Offset By Increased Demand. “Economic evidence supports the notion that the tax will reduce sales of medical devices. Yet the drop is likely to be less than AdvaMed predicts and could be offset by demand from millions of new customers.” [Bloomberg Businessweek, 03/22/12]Urban Institute: Increased Spending By Newly Insured Individuals Under The Affordable Care Act Will Offset Effects Of The Medical Device Tax. “Concerns have been raised that the taxes on drugs and medical device manufacturers could adversely affect innovation and discovery of new pharmaceuticals and technologies. This seems unlikely to be a serious concern because the new revenues in these industries from expanded coverage would considerably exceed the new taxes… increased spending by newly insured people under reform will largely offset the negative effects of taxes. Thus, incentives for medical device manufacturers to innovate and create new products should be relatively unaffected by the new excise taxes. If the number of uninsured would have grown in the absence of reform, demand for medical devices would have declined. To the extent that expanded coverage means increased demand, the incentives for innovation in this area are at best increased and at least unchanged.” [Urban Institute, August 2010]Consequences Of Repealing The Affordable Care Act -- LongREPEALING THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT WOULD INCREASE THE DEFICIT BY OVER $1.1 TRILLION IN THE NEXT DECADEMarket Watch: Repealing The Affordable Care Act Would Add To The Deficit. “Adjustments to President Barack Obama’s health-care overhaul as a result of the recent Supreme Court ruling upholding the landmark law will result in some cost savings, and a proposed repeal of the legislation would add to the deficit.” [Market Watch, 7/24/12]The Affordable Care Act Will Reduce The Deficit By Over $1.1 Trillion. “The Affordable Care Act will reduce our deficit by over $100 billion over the next 10 years and by more than $1 trillion over the second 10 years, as well as fully pay for all new coverage.” [White House, Accessed 06/27/12]REPEALING THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT WOULD LEAVE MILLIONS WITHOUT INSURANCE, INCLUDING OVER THREE MILLION YOUNG ADULTSThe Affordable Care Act Will Enable An Additional 30 Million People To Gain Insurance. “CBO and JCT now estimate that the ACA, in comparison with prior law before the enactment of the ACA, will reduce the number of nonelderly people without health insurance coverage by 14 million in 2014 and by 29 million or 30 million in the latter part of the coming decade.” [Congressional Budget Office, 7/24/12]6.6 Million Young Adults, Including 3.1 Million Who Were Previously Uninsured, Would Lose The Option Of Staying On Their Parents’ Health Plans If The Health Care Law Were Repealed.. “Here is what’s at stake if Congressional Republicans succeed in repealing the Affordable Care Act…6.6 million young adults, including 3.1 million who were previously uninsured, would lose the option of staying on their parents’ health plans if the health care law were repealed.” [, 7/10/12]REPEALING THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT WOULD ALLOW INSURANCE COMPANIES TO DENY COVERAGE TO CHILDREN AND ADULTS WITH PRE-EXISTING CONDITIONSUnder The Affordable Care Act, Insurance Companies Will No Longer Be Able To Deny Coverage Because Of Pre-Existing Conditions. “Up to one in five non-elderly Americans with a pre-existing condition – 25 million individuals – is uninsured. ?Under the Affordable Care Act, starting in 2014, these Americans cannot be denied coverage, be charged significantly higher premiums, be subjected to an extended waiting period, or have their benefits curtailed by insurance companies.” [, Accessed 12/30/11]The President’s Health Care Reform Prevents Insurers From Denying Coverage To Children Under Age 19 Based On Pre-Existing Conditions. “Now, under the health care law, plans that cover children can no longer exclude, limit, or deny coverage to your child under age 19 solely based on a health problem or disability that your child developed before you applied for coverage.” [, 09/23/2010]REPEALING THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT WOULD ROLL BACK CONSUMER PROTECTIONS AGAINST THE WORST INSURANCE COMPANY ABUSESBecause of Health Care Reform, 105 Million Americans No Longer Have A Lifetime Limit On Their Insurance Policies. “Overall, we estimated that 70 million persons in large employer plans, 25 million persons in small employer plans, and 10 million persons with individually purchased health insurance had lifetime limits on their health benefits prior to the passage of the Affordable Care Act.? These 105 million Americans now enjoy improved coverage without lifetime limits.” [Department of Health & Human Services, March 2012]In 2014, Health Care Reform Will Prevent Insurers From Charging Women Higher Premiums Than They Charge Men. “Before the law, women could be charged more for individual insurance policies simply because of their gender. A 22-year-old woman could be charged 150% the premium that a 22-year-old man paid. In 2014, insurers will not be able to charge women higher premiums than they charge men.” [, accessed 7/28/11] The Affordable Care Act Prevents Insurers From Rescinding Coverage If A Person Makes A Mistake On Their Insurance Application. “Before the health care law, if your insurance company found that you’d made a mistake on your insurance application, the insurance company might “rescind” your benefits — that is, declare your policy invalid from the day it began. Your insurance company might also ask you to pay back any money already spent for your medical care. Now, an insurer cannot rescind your coverage simply because you made an honest mistake or left out information that has little bearing on your health.” [, 09/23/10]REPEALING THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT WOULD WEAKEN MEDICARE??????????? AARP Letter To Congress: ?Repeal Of The Affordable Care Act Would Eliminate Important Improvements For Older Americans. “As the House prepares to vote this week on repeal of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), I am writing to make clear AARP’s position…. AARP opposes repeal because the new law includes many vital provisions important to older Americans and their children….we have learned that older Americans and their families—while still unclear on many aspects of the new law—support key provisions of the ACA. ?These include: strengthening Medicare, such as by lowering drug costs for seniors in the Medicare Part D coverage gap or ‘doughnut hole’ and adding free preventive services…However, repeal of the ACA would result in the loss of these important protections for older Americans.” [AARP Letter To Congress, 1/18/11]The Affordable Care Act Extends The Solvency Of Medicare Part A To 2024, Eight Years Longer Than Without Health Care Reform. “The Medicare Trustees Report released today shows that the Hospital Insurance (HI) Trust Fund is expected to remain solvent until 2024, the same as last year’s estimate, but action is needed to secure its long-term future.? In 2011, the HI Trust Fund expenditures were lower than expected. Without the Affordable Care Act, the HI Trust Fund would expire 8 years earlier, in 2016. ”[Center For Medicare & Medicaid Services, 04/23/12]Obamacare Is Helping Lower Health Care Costs-- ShortTHE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT SAVES AMERICAN FAMILIES MONEY THROUGH LOWER PREMIUMS, TAX CUTS, AND INSURANCE COMPANY REBATESTHE CLAIM THAT HEALTH INSURANCE PREMIUMS WILL INCREASE UNDER OBAMACARE WAS RATED ‘”MOSTLY FALSE”Politifact Rated Rick Scott’s Statement That Health Insurance Premiums Will Increase Under The Law “Mostly False.” “[Governor Rick] Scott says [the health care law] will lead to increased premiums… In an "apples to apples" comparison, CBO found that premiums for new "essential health benefits" packages would actually be 7 to 10 percent less than equivalent insurance under the old law….Our ruling:…We rate Scott’s statement Mostly False.” [Tampa Bay Times Politifact, 6/2/12]THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT PROVIDES NEW PREMIUM TAX CREDITS AND LOWERS COSTS TO HELP FAMILIES AFFORD INSURANCEThe Affordable Care Act Accounts For The Largest Health Care Tax Cut In History For The Middle Class. “The?health reform legislation?signed into law by President Obama includes the largest health care tax cut in history for middle class families, helping to make insurance much more affordable for millions of families.” [White House, 04/13/10]Beginning In 2014, Individuals And Families Can Take A New Health Care Premium Tax Credit To Help Them Afford Insurance Purchased Through An Affordable Insurance Exchange. “Starting in 2014, individuals and families can take a new premium tax credit to help them afford health insurance coverage purchased through an Affordable Insurance Exchange. Exchanges will operate in every state and the District of Columbia. The premium tax credit is refundable so taxpayers who have little or no income tax liability can still benefit. The credit also can be paid in advance to a taxpayer’s insurance company to help cover the cost of premiums.”? [Internal Revenue Service, 11/30/11]According To The Congressional Budget Office, By 2017, 18 Million Individuals In The Health Insurance Exchanges Are Projected To Receive Premium Credits.?[Congressional Budget Office,?03/13/12]The Affordable Care Act Will Lower Premiums By Nearly $2,000 Per Family Over 2010-1019. “The health reform legislation passed in March 2010 will introduce a range of payment and delivery system changes designed to achieve a significant slowing of health care cost growth. Most assessments of the new reform law have focused only on the federal budgetary impact. This updated analysis projects the effect of national reform on total national health expenditures and the insurance premiums that American families would likely pay. We estimate that, on net, the combination of provisions in the new law will reduce health care spending by $590 billion over 2010–2019 and lower premiums by nearly $2,000 per family. Moreover, the annual growth rate in national health expenditures could be slowed from 6.3 percent to 5.7 percent.” [Commonwealth Fund, May 2010]Pushback: The Affordable Care Act Provides Premium Tax Cuts And Lowers CostsTHE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT PROVIDES THE LARGEST HEALTH CARE TAX CUT IN HISTORY FOR THE MIDDLE CLASS The Affordable Care Act Accounts For The Largest Health Care Tax Cut For The Middle Class In History. “The?health reform legislation?signed into law by President Obama includes the largest health care tax cut in history for middle class families, helping to make insurance much more affordable for millions of families.” [White House, 04/13/10]The Washington Post Fact Checker Rated White House Chief Of Staff Jack Lew’s Claim That “More Middle Class People Are Going To Get A Tax Cut In This Law” A “Rare Geppetto Checkmark.” [Washington Post, Fact Checker Blog,?7/6/12]Beginning In 2014, Individuals And Families Can Take A New Health Care Premium Tax Credit To Help Them Afford Insurance Purchased Through An Affordable Insurance Exchange. “Starting in 2014, individuals and families can take a new premium tax credit to help them afford health insurance coverage purchased through an Affordable Insurance Exchange. Exchanges will operate in every state and the District of Columbia. The premium tax credit is refundable so taxpayers who have little or no income tax liability can still benefit. The credit also can be paid in advance to a taxpayer’s insurance company to help cover the cost of premiums.”? [Internal Revenue Service, 11/30/11]According To The Congressional Budget Office, By 2017, 18 Million Individuals In The Health Insurance Exchanges Are Projected To Receive Premium Credits.?[Congressional Budget Office,?03/13/12]The Average Exchange Subsidy Per Subsidized Enrolled Will Be $4,780 In 2014. [Table 3, Congressional Budget Office, 03/2012]The Average Exchange Subsidy Per Subsidized Enrollee Will Be?$5,300?In 2017.?[Congressional Budget Office,?03/13/12]In 2014, Annual Premiums Are Projected To Fall Compared To What They Would Be Without The Affordable Care Act With Savings Of Up To $2,300 For Middle-Income Families Purchasing Through Exchanges.? “In 2014, annual premiums are projected to fall compared to what they would have been without the Affordable Care Act. These savings could be as much as $2,300 for middle-income families purchasing through Exchanges.” [, 01/28/11]Washington Post Fact Check: The Total Amount Of Tax Credits And Subsidies Provided To Individuals In the Affordable Care Act Is Nearly 12 Times Larger Than The Penalty Associated With The Mandate. “The CBO estimated that the government will provide $630 billion in?tax credits and subsidies?for insurance within the next 11 years, compared to just $54 billion in?penalties?for uninsured individuals over the same period…. credits and subsidies represent nearly 12 times the amount of ‘tax’ through the penalty.” [Washington Post, Fact Checker Blog,?7/6/12]Washington Post Fact Check: “The Health Law…Will Provide More Tax Relief Than Tax Burden For Middle-Income Americans. “Total middle-class tax hikes, as the Joint Committee on Taxation has?listed?them, would amount to just $64.6 billion, compared to $343 billion in subsidies and credits. The tax increases in this case would affect individuals making less than $200,000. They include the penalty, plus a higher threshold for itemized deductions of medical expenses and additional taxes related to health spending accounts and flexible spending arrangements….The health law, if it works as the nonpartisan government analysts expect, will provide more tax relief than tax burden for middle-income Americans.” [Washington Post, Fact Checker Blog,?7/6/12]Pushback: Obamacare Imposes 18 Tax Hikes On The Middle ClassINDEPENDENT FACT CHECKERS DEBUNKED REPUBLICAN CLAIMS THAT THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT RAISES TAXES ON THOSE MAKING UNDER $250,000Miami Herald PolitiFact: Suggesting That Health Care Reform Contains “The Largest In U.S. History Is Inaccurate. We Rate This Claim False.”?“The tax increases in the health care legislation do reverse a trend of federal tax cuts and represents the first significant tax increases since 1993. But for Scott to suggest they are the largest in U.S. history is inaccurate. We rate this claim False.” [Miami Herald, Politifact,?02/03/11]?Miami Herald Politifact: The Crossroads Claim That The Affordable Care Act Raises Taxes 18 Times On Those Making Under $250,000 Is “Mostly False.” “The Crossroads ad wrongly implies that people of modest means are getting hit with 18 tax increases because of the health care law. In fact, most of the taxes in the health care law are on high-income individuals or the health care industry. We rate their statement Mostly False.” [Miami Herald, Politifact, 5/17/12]: “The Truth Is That Obama Repeatedly?Cut?Taxes” For Families Making Less Than $250,000 A Year. “The latest multimillion-dollar attack ad from Crossroads GPS claims President Obama?broke a promise to not increase taxes for families making less than $250,000 a year. That’s almost entirely false. The truth is that Obama repeatedly?cut?taxes for such families, first through a tax credit in effect for 2009 and 2010, and beginning in 2011, through a reduction in the payroll tax that is worth $1,000 this year to workers earning $50,000 a year. And while it’s true that some tax increases contained in the new health care law would fall on individuals, they have mostly not taken effect yet and are small compared with the cuts the president already enacted. And this ad exaggerates them greatly.” [, 5/17/12]Pushback: Obamacare Imposes The Biggest Tax In The History Of The United StatesINDEPENDENT FACT-CHECKERS HAVE DEBUNKED THE CLAIM THAT THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT IS THE BIGGEST TAX INCREASE IN THE HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATESMiami Herald Politifact Rated The Claim That The Affordable Care Act Is The Largest Tax Increase In History On The Middle Class “Pants On Fire.” “Actually, the law is not the largest tax increase in history, and most of its taxes fall on the wealthy and the health care industry. Even if?all?of the taxes in the health care law fell on the middle class -- which they don’t – the statement still wouldn’t be accurate. For flagrant disregard of the facts, we rate this statement Pants on Fire!” [Miami Herald, Politifact, 7/11/12]Miami Herald PolitiFact: Suggesting That Health Care Reform Contains “The Largest In U.S. History Is Inaccurate. We Rate This Claim False.”?“The tax increases in the health care legislation do reverse a trend of federal tax cuts and represents the first significant tax increases since 1993. But for Scott to suggest they are the largest in U.S. history is inaccurate. We rate this claim False.” [Miami Herald, Politifact,?02/03/11]?Ezra Klein: The Affordable Care Act Is “Not Even The Biggest Tax Hike In The Past 60 Years; Or 50 Years; Or 30 Years; Or 20 Years.” “So no, the Affordable Care Act isn’t the ‘biggest tax hike in history.’ It’s not even the biggest tax hike in the past 60 years. Or 50 years. Or 30 years. Or 20 years.” [Washington Post, WonkBlog, 07/02/12]Pushback: 20 Million Americans Will Lose Their Current InsuranceTHE CLAIM THAT OBAMACARE WILL CAUSE 20 MILLION PEOPLE TO LOSE THE INSURANCE THEY CURRENTLY HAVE IS FALSETHE NUMBER OF WORKERS RECEIVING EMPLOYER-SPONSORED INSURANCE UNDER THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT WOULD REMAIN ROUGHLY THE SAME, AND THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT PROVIDES INCENTIVES FOR EMPLOYER-SPONSORED INSURANCETampa Bay Times Politifact: Romney’s Claim That 20 Million People Will Lose The Insurance They Currently Have Is “False.” “Romney said that ‘Obamacare … means that for up to 20 million Americans, they will lose the insurance they currently have, the insurance that they like and they want to keep.’ That number is cherry-picked, and he’s wrong to describe it as only including people who ‘like’ their coverage, since many of those 20 million will be leaving employer coverage voluntarily for better options. Romney also ignores that under the status quo, many more people today ‘lose’ coverage than even the highest, cherry-picked CBO estimate. We rate his statement False.” [Tampa Bay Times, Politifact, 06/29/12]The Congressional Budget Office Does Not Project Major Changes In The Number Of Workers Who Will Get Insurance Through Their Jobs. “Today’s report also does not project major changes in the number of workers who will get coverage through their job. At the time of passage CBO projected a change of 3 million people; last year CBO projected 1 million; this year 4 million – out of the roughly 150 million people get insurance through their job today.” [White House Blog, 03/14/12]The Congressional Budget Office: Employment-Based Health Insurance Coverage May Increase, Based On Massachusetts’s Experience. “One piece of evidence that may be relevant is the experience in Massachusetts, where employment-based health insurance coverage appeared to increase after that state’s reforms, which are similar but not identical to those in the ACA, were implemented.” [Congressional Budget Office, March 2012]According To The Urban Institute, Employer-Sponsored Insurance Under The Affordable Care Act Would Not Significantly Differ From What Coverage Would Be Without Reform. “Overall ESI coverage under the ACA would not differ significantly from what coverage would be without reform. Small- and medium-firm ESI coverage would be almost unchanged, and large-firm ESI coverage would increase by just over 2 percentage point.” [Urban Institute, 01/2011]Congressional Budget Office Director Doug Elmendorf: The Affordable Care Act Provides New Incentives For Employers To Offer Coverage. “The legislation leaves in place substantial financial advantages for many people to receive insurance coverage through their employers, and it provides some new incentives for employers to offer insurance coverage to their employees.” [Congressional Budget Office Director Doug Elmendorf Committee Testimony, 03/30/11]According To A RAND Corporation Study, After Full Implementation Of The Affordable Care Act Businesses Will Frequently Choose To Offer Insurance Rather Than Drop Coverage. “After the ACA is implemented, firms making decisions on the basis of costs and benefits of their insurance options, including new subsidies and penalties, will frequently choose to offer insurance rather than to drop coverage and allow their workers to buy individual coverage.” [New England Journal of Medicine, 10/07/10]Pushback: The Affordable Care Act Adds To The DeficitTHE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT DOES NOT ADD TO THE DEFICIT BUT WILL INSTEAD CUT THE DEFICIT BY OVER $1.1 TRILLION IN THE FOLLOWING DECADEINDEPENDENT FACT-CHECKERS HAVE DEBUNKED THE CLAIM THAT THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT ADDS TO THE DEFICITTampa Bay Times Politifact: Romney’s Assertion That Obamacare Will Add Trillions To The Deficit Is “False.” “Still, we find no factual basis for Romney’s claim that the law ‘adds trillions to our deficits and to our national debt.’ We rate his statement False.” [Tampa Bay Times, Politifact, 06/28/12]Market Watch: Repealing The Affordable Care Act Would Add To The Deficit. “Adjustments to President Barack Obama’s health-care overhaul as a result of the recent Supreme Court ruling upholding the landmark law will result in some cost savings, and a proposed repeal of the legislation would add to the deficit.” [Market Watch, 7/24/12]Associated Press:The Affordable Care Act Will Shrink Rather Than Increase The Deficit. “President Barack Obama's health care overhaul will shrink rather than increase the nation's huge federal deficits over the next decade, Congress' nonpartisan budget scorekeepers said Tuesday, supporting Obama's contention in a major election-year dispute with Republicans.” [Associated Press, 7/24/12]THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT WILL REDUCE THE DEFICIT BY OVER $1.1 TRILLION The Affordable Care Act Will Reduce The Deficit By Over $1.1 Trillion. “The Affordable Care Act will reduce our deficit by over $100 billion over the next 10 years and by more than $1 trillion over the second 10 years, as well as fully pay for all new coverage.” [White House, Accessed 06/27/12]Repeal Of The Affordable Care Act Would Increase The Deficit By $109 Billion Over The 2013-2022 Period. “On net, CBO and JCT estimate, repealing the ACA would increase federal budget deficits by $109 billion over the 2013–2022 period.” [Congressional Budget Office, 07/2012]Affordable Care Act Is Projected To Reduce The Deficit By Over $1 Trillion Over The Second Decade According To Current Estimates [Congressional Budget Office, August 2012; Congressional Budget Office, 3/30/11] Pushback: Premium Growth And Health Care Cost Growth Are At Historic LowsCLAIMS THAT HEALTH INSURANCE PREMIUMS WILL INCREASE UNDER THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT HAVE BEEN DEBUNKEDPolitifact Rated Rick Scott’s Statement That Health Insurance Premiums Will Increase Under The Law “Mostly False.” “[Governor Rick] Scott says [the health care law] will lead to increased premiums… The CBO report, produced Nov. 30, 2009, examined how the law would affect health care premiums for people who purchase insurance through an employer-based group market (both large and small businesses) and for individuals… According to the agency, people in the individual market will actually pay less for the required amount of benefits under the Affordable Care Act than they would for those same benefits under old policies. We rate Scott’s statement Mostly False.” [Tampa Bay Times Politifact, 6/2/12]ACCORDING TO EXPERTS, PREMIUM GROWTH IS AT HISTORIC LOWS, AND HEALTH CARE COST GROWTH IS THE LOWEST IT’S BEEN IN 50 YEARS UNDER THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACTHealth Affairs:?US Health Spending Growth In 2009 And 2010 Was The Lowest In The 51 Year History Of National Health Expenditures Accounts.?“US health spending grew more slowly in 2009 and 2010—at rates of 3.8 percent and 3.9 percent, respectively—than in any other years during the fifty-one-year history of the National Health Expenditure Accounts.” [Health Affairs,?January 2012]New York Times?Editorial Board: Average Premium Growth For Employer-Sponsored Family Coverage And Individual Coverage Were “Well Below The Double-Digit Increases In The Past Decade.” “In other good news,?a survey?by the Kaiser Family Foundation and the Health Research and Educational Trust showed that average premiums for employer-sponsored health insurance for family coverage rose 4 percent from last year and individual coverage rose 3 percent — well below the double-digit increases in the past decade. The recession accounts for some of this moderation in costs. The spread of high deductible health plans may also have reduced spending, and some experts think the health care reforms, which don’t fully kick in until 2014, are already pushing health care providers and insurers to lower their costs.”?[New York Times, Editorial Board,?9/12/12]?Bloomberg Fact Check: “The Rate Of [Premium] Increase Has Slowed Under Obama.” “The fact [Romney] didn’t mention is that the rate of [premium] increase has slowed under Obama. Kaiser calculated insurance rates over the past 10 years. They rose at an average annual rate of eight percent from 2002 through 2008, the year Obama was elected. Since he came to office, Kaiser said, the average annual rate has been 4.3 percent.”[Bloomberg, 10/4/12]HEALTH CARE COST GROWTH IS THE LOWEST IT’S BEEN IN 50 YEARS Health Affairs:?US Health Spending Growth In 2009 And 2010 Was The Lowest In The 51 Year History Of National Health Expenditures Accounts.?“US health spending grew more slowly in 2009 and 2010—at rates of 3.8 percent and 3.9 percent, respectively—than in any other years during the fifty-one-year history of the National Health Expenditure Accounts.” [Health Affairs,?January 2012]Under Current Law, National Health Spending Is Expected to Continue To Grow Relatively Slowly In 2012 And 2013. “National health spending is projected to continue to grow relatively slowly in 2012 and 2013 under current law, at 4.2 percent and 3.8 percent, respectively. Of note, both private health insurance and Medicare spending are projected to grow at low rates over this period.” [Health Affairs, 06/2012]THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT LOWERS PREMIUM COSTS FOR AMERICAN FAMILIESThe Affordable Care Act Will Lower Premiums By Nearly $2,000 Per Family Over 2010-2019. “The health reform legislation passed in March 2010 will introduce a range of payment and delivery system changes designed to achieve a significant slowing of health care cost growth. Most assessments of the new reform law have focused only on the federal budgetary impact. This updated analysis projects the effect of national reform on total national health expenditures and the insurance premiums that American families would likely pay. We estimate that, on net, the combination of provisions in the new law will reduce health care spending by $590 billion over 2010–2019 and lower premiums by nearly $2,000 per family. Moreover, the annual growth rate in national health expenditures could be slowed from 6.3 percent to 5.7 percent.” [Commonwealth Fund, May 2010]The Congressional Budget Office Has Estimated That On An Apples To Apples Basis, Premiums Will Be 14 To 20 Percent Lower In 2016. “In fact, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has estimated that, on an apples-to-apples basis, premiums will be 14- 20 percent lower than they would be under current law in 2016 due to competition, lower insurance overhead, and increased pooling and purchasing power.” [Department of Health & Human Services, Press Release, 6/14/10]CONTRASTRomney’s Health Care Plan Would Raise Costs For Families Compared To ObamacareACCORDING TO AN ANALYSIS WRITTEN BY AN ADVISER TO ROMNEYCARE, ROMNEY’S HEALTH CARE PLANS WOULD COST THE AVERAGE FAMILY NEARLY TWICE AS MUCH AS OBAMACARE AND WOULD LEAVE 51 MILLION MORE AMERICANS UNINSURED Under Romney’s Plan, Average Health Care Spending Would Be 92 Percent Higher Than Under Obamacare. According to FamiliesUSA, “Accordingly, under RomneyCandidateCare, average health care spending by a household would be 92 percent higher than under ObamaCare (Table 3).” [FamiliesUSA, September 2012]Under Obamacare, Average Family Spending On Health Care Would Be $5,985. According to FamiliesUSA, “Under ObamaCare, the average spending on health care (including premiums and out-of-pocket costs) would be $5,985 (Table 3).” [FamiliesUSA, September 2012]Under Romney’s Plan, Average Family Spending On Health Care Would Be $11,481. According to FamiliesUSA, “Under RomneyCandidateCare, the average spending on health care (including premiums and out-of-pocket costs) would be $11,481 (Table 3).” [FamiliesUSA, September 2012]Families USA: Under Romney’s Policies, There Would Be 51 Million More Uninsured People By 2022. “Uninsured Americans in 2022: In the absence of ObamaCare or RomneyCandidateCare, the number of uninsured Americans under the age of 65 is projected to rise to more than 60.0 million by 2022 (Table 6); Under ObamaCare, the number of uninsured Americans would decrease significantly, falling by 32.9 million by 2022 (Table 6); In sharp contrast, under RomneyCandidateCare, the number of uninsured Americans would actually increase, rising by nearly 18.0 million to 78.0 million by 2022 (Table 7); Under RomneyCandidateCare, in 2022, there would be nearly 50.9 million more uninsured people than under ObamaCare (Table 7).” [Families USA, September 2012]Jonathan Gruber Co-Wrote The Families USA Analysis. “In order to compare ObamaCare, RomneyCare, and RomneyCandidateCare, Families USA commissioned the work of Dr. Jonathan Gruber, Professor of Economics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Dr. Gruber’s economic model, built on publicly available data, allowed us to generate unique new estimates of the impact of each of these three policy approaches on the following: the number of people eligible for help with the cost of health insurance premiums and the value of that help, the average amount of money spent on health care by people with private insurance, and the number of uninsured people.” [FamiliesUSA, September 2012]Despite Romney’s Claims, Millions More Would Lose Health Care Under His Plans Compared To ObamacareROMNEY’S HEALTH CARE PLANS WOULD LEAVE 51 MILLION MORE AMERICANS UNINSURED Families USA: Under Romney’s Policies, There Would Be 51 Million More Uninsured People By 2022. “Uninsured Americans in 2022: In the absence of ObamaCare or RomneyCandidateCare, the number of uninsured Americans under the age of 65 is projected to rise to more than 60.0 million by 2022 (Table 6); Under ObamaCare, the number of uninsured Americans would decrease significantly, falling by 32.9 million by 2022 (Table 6); In sharp contrast, under RomneyCandidateCare, the number of uninsured Americans would actually increase, rising by nearly 18.0 million to 78.0 million by 2022 (Table 7); Under RomneyCandidateCare, in 2022, there would be nearly 50.9 million more uninsured people than under ObamaCare (Table 7).” [Families USA, September 2012]THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT ALLOWS PEOPLE TO KEEP PLANS THROUGH GRANDFATHERING AND WOULD INCENTIVIZE EMPLOYER-SPONSORED COVERAGETHE NUMBER OF WORKERS RECEIVING EMPLOYER-SPONSORED INSURANCE UNDER THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT WOULD REMAIN ROUGHLY THE SAME, AND THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT PROVIDES INCENTIVES FOR EMPLOYER-SPONSORED INSURANCEThe Congressional Budget Office Does Not Project Major Changes In The Number Of Workers Who Will Get Insurance Through Their Jobs. “Today’s report also does not project major changes in the number of workers who will get coverage through their job. At the time of passage CBO projected a change of 3 million people; last year CBO projected 1 million; this year 4 million – out of the roughly 150 million people get insurance through their job today.” [White House Blog, 03/14/12]The Congressional Budget Office: Employment-Based Health Insurance Coverage May Increase, Based On Massachusetts’s Experience. “One piece of evidence that may be relevant is the experience in Massachusetts, where employment-based health insurance coverage appeared to increase after that state’s reforms, which are similar but not identical to those in the ACA, were implemented.” [Congressional Budget Office, March 2012]According To The Urban Institute, Employer-Sponsored Insurance Under The Affordable Care Act Would Not Significantly Differ From What Coverage Would Be Without Reform. “Overall ESI coverage under the ACA would not differ significantly from what coverage would be without reform. Small- and medium-firm ESI coverage would be almost unchanged, and large-firm ESI coverage would increase by just over 2 percentage point.” [Urban Institute, 01/2011]Congressional Budget Office Director Doug Elmendorf: The Affordable Care Act Provides New Incentives For Employers To Offer Coverage. “The legislation leaves in place substantial financial advantages for many people to receive insurance coverage through their employers, and it provides some new incentives for employers to offer insurance coverage to their employees.” [Congressional Budget Office Director Doug Elmendorf Committee Testimony, 03/30/11]According To A RAND Corporation Study, After Full Implementation Of The Affordable Care Act Businesses Will Frequently Choose To Offer Insurance Rather Than Drop Coverage. “After the ACA is implemented, firms making decisions on the basis of costs and benefits of their insurance options, including new subsidies and penalties, will frequently choose to offer insurance rather than to drop coverage and allow their workers to buy individual coverage.” [New England Journal of Medicine, 10/07/10]Romney Would Repeal Obamacare, Which Ensures Access To Affordable Health Care For All AmericansROMNEY AND RYAN VOWED TO REPEAL OBAMACARE AND “KILL IT DEAD ON ITS FIRST DAY”Romney: “If I’m President, I Will Repeal Obamacare, And I’ll Kill It Dead On Its First Day.” [Romney town hall, Collinsville, IL, 3/17/12]Romney: “Friday Is The Second Anniversary Of Obamacare. It Is Past Time To Abolish The Program, Root And Branch.” [Mitt Romney Op-Ed, USA Today, 3/22/12]2013 Ryan Budget Repealed Health Care Reform Bill. Here’s a review of the 32 votes taken since January 2011. Note that the vote count, provided by the office of the House Majority Whip, includes votes on final passage of bills and the passage of certain amendments related to the health-care law: … 28.) March 29, 2012: The Fiscal 2013 Federal Budget: This spending proposal also repealed and defunded the health law.” [, 7/11/12]REPEALING THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT WOULD MEAN THAT 89 MILLION AMERICANS COULD BE DENIED COVERAGE IF THEY HAVE A PRE-EXISTING CONDITION, MILLIONS OF YOUNG ADULTS WOULD LOSE COVERAGE, AND INSURANCE COMPANIES COULD CONTINUE CHARGING WOMEN MORE THAN MEN FOR THE SAME COVERAGEUnder The Affordable Care Act Beginning In 2014, Americans Cannot Be Denied Coverage If They Have A Pre-Existing Condition. “Up to one in five non-elderly Americans with a pre-existing condition – 25 million individuals – is uninsured. ?Under the Affordable Care Act, starting in 2014, these Americans cannot be denied coverage, be charged significantly higher premiums, be subjected to an extended waiting period, or have their benefits curtailed by insurance companies.” [, Accessed 12/30/11]Those With Non-Continuous Coverage Add Up To Roughly 89 Million Americans, Or 36 Percent Of The Population, Between Age 4 and 65. “89 million Americans had at least a single one-month gap in insurance coverage. They were not, in other words, continually insured. That works out to 36 percent of the population between age 4 and 65.” [Washington Post, Wonk Blog, 9/10/12]Over 3 Million Young Adults Gained Health Care Coverage Because Of The Provision Allowing Young Adults Under 26 To Remain On Their Parents’ Insurance. “New survey findings released today by the National Center for Health Statistics show that the extension of dependent health coverage up to age 26 continues to lead to greater rates of insurance coverage among young adults. This policy is one part of the Affordable Care Act, and it took effect for insurance plan renewals beginning on September 23, 2010. The new estimates show that from September 2010 to December 2011, the percentage of adults 19 to 25 with insurance coverage increased from 64.4% to 74.8%, which translates into over 3 million additional young adults with coverage.” [Department of Health and Human Services, 06/19/12]In 2014, Health Care Reform Will Prevent Insurers From Charging Women Higher Premiums Than They Charge Men. “Before the law, women could be charged more for individual insurance policies simply because of their gender. A 22-year-old woman could be charged 150% the premium that a 22-year-old man paid. In 2014, insurers will not be able to charge women higher premiums than they charge men.” [, accessed 7/28/11] Romney Would Cut The Children’s Health Insurance Program, While President Obama Reauthorized And Expanded ItPRESIDENT OBAMA REAUTHORIZED THE CHILD HEALTH INSURANCE PROGRAM, EXPANDING COVERAGE TO AN ADDITIONAL 4 MILLION CHILDRENPresident Obama’s Children Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Will Expand Health Insurance To An Additional 4 Million Children By 2013. “After more than two years of debate, CHIPRA 2009 was one of the first pieces of legislation passed by the 111th Congress and signed by President Obama.? The Act expands funding for children’s coverage by $33 billion in federal funds over the next four and half years and is expected to extend coverage to 4.1 million children through Medicaid and CHIP who otherwise would have been uninsured by 2013.” [Kaiser Family Foundation, 02/2009]The Reauthorization of CHIP Expands The Plan From 7 Million To 11 Million Children. “President Obama signed the Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act (CHIP) tonight, which renews and expands the plan from 7 million children affected to 11 million.” [The White House, 02/04/09]The Affordable Care Act And The CHIP Reauthorization Have Combined To Expand Health Coverage To 3.7 Million Children And Young Adults Between 2008 And 2011. “Overall, these findings indicate that the two largest pieces of health care legislation passed under the current administration?— CHIPRA and the Affordable Care Act?— have combined to expand health insurance to 3.7 million children and young adults since 2008.” [Issue Brief, Department of Health and Human Services, 12/28/11]THE ROMNEY-RYAN BUDGET WOULD SLASH CHIP FUNDING, WHICH COULD LEAD TO REDUCE ACCESS TO CAREThe Ryan Budget Would Cut Medicaid And CHIP By $300 Billion A Year By 2022. “In the year 2022, Ryan’s spending on Medicaid and CHIP is $332 billion, whereas under CBO’s baseline, that total amounts to $628 billion. Approximately half of this reduction results from the fact that Ryan’s budget repeals the Medicaid and CHIP expansion in the ACA, while the other half – roughly $160 billion in 2022 – is the cut produced by the block granting of both programs.” [Bipartisan Policy Center, Paul Ryan’s Fiscal Year 2013 Budget: The Details, 3/21/12]CBO: The Ryan Budget’s Medicaid And CHIP Cuts “Could Lead To “Reduced Eligibility,” “Coverage Of Fewer Services, Lower Payments To Providers, Or Increased Costsharing By Beneficiaries—All Of Which Would Reduce Access To Care.”“This budget would repeal the Affordable Care Act’s (ACAs) expansion of Medicaid and CHIP that is scheduled to extend coverage to most nonelderly people (and their children) with incomes below 138 percent of the federal poverty level. Additionally, instead of the current shared-financing system between the states and federal government, the federal share of Medicaid would be allocated to the states through block grants… CBO analysis: ‘The responses of the states [to this policy] would be of particular importance. If states were given additional flexibility to allocate federal funds for Medicaid and CHIP according to their own priorities, they might be able to improve the efficiency of those programs in delivering health care to low-income populations. Nevertheless, even with significant efficiency gains, the magnitude of the reduction in spending relative to such spending in the other scenarios means that states would need to increase their spending on these programs, make considerable cutbacks in them, or both. Cutbacks might involve reduced eligibility for Medicaid and CHIP, coverage of fewer services, lower payments to providers, or increased cost-sharing by beneficiaries – all of which would reduce access to care.’” [Bipartisan Policy Center, Paul Ryan’s Fiscal Year 2013 Budget: The Details, 3/21/12]RYAN’S 2010 BUDGET PROPOSED ELIMINATING CHIP2010: The Ryan Budget Would Have Completely Eliminated The Children’s Health Insurance Program. “The Ryan plan would eliminate traditional Medicare, most of Medicaid, and all of the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), converting these health programs largely to vouchers that low-income households, seniors, and people with disabilities could use to help buy insurance in the private health insurance market.” [Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 7/7/10]RYAN REPEATEDLY VOTED AGAINST THE REAUTHORIZATION OF AND FUNDING FOR THE CHILDREN’S HEALTH INSURANCE PROGRAMRyan Voted Against Children’s Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act Of 2009. [HR 2, Vote #16, 1/14/09; CQ House Action Report, Legislative Week of January 12, 2009]Ryan: SCHIP Expansion Is An “Excuse To Push People From Private Health Insurance To Government Health Coverage.” “Instead, this bill uses a children’s health insurance program as an excuse to push people from private health insurance to government health coverage, while imposing taxes on low-income Americans and eliminating new physician-owned hospitals. It essentially creates a costly new entitlement program at a time when our existing major entitlements are going broke. While I support extending the State Children’s Health Insurance Program so it can keep fulfilling its original purpose, this fiscally irresponsible bill goes far beyond this goal - doing more harm than good.” [Rep. Paul Ryan press release, 1/14/09]Ryan: SCHIP Expansion “Would Hurt Working Families, Taxpayers And Doctors.” “1st District Congressman Paul Ryan today voted against legislation that exploits the reauthorization of a popular children’s health insurance program to expand government-run, bureaucracy-driven health care and increase already unsustainable entitlement spending. The bill would hurt working families, taxpayers, and doctors through a combination of cuts to physician-owned hospitals and tax increases to ‘pay’ for this fiscally irresponsible proposal - although budget gimmicks hide its true cost.” [Rep. Paul Ryan press release, 1/14/09]2008: Ryan Opposed Veto Override For SCHIP. [HR3963, Vote #22, 1/23/08; CongressNow, 1/23/08]Ryan Voted To Block SCHIP Veto Override Attempt. [HR 3963, Vote #21, 1/23/08; CQ Floor Votes, 1/23/08]Ryan Voted With Bush In Opposition To Reauthorizing And Expanding Children’s Health Insurance. [HR 976, Vote #982, 10/18/07; CQ Floor Votes, 10/18/07]Ryan: SCHIP Bill “Designed To Lure And Trap” Americans Into Promise That Government Cannot Keep. “In short, the S-CHIP bill as currently designed is going to lure and trap a whole lot of people into a promise that the federal government, according to nearly every budget expert out there, simply cannot keep in the long run. We believe there’s a better way.” [Ryan statement, House Budget Committee, 10/18/07]Ryan: SCHIP Expansion Is About Greater Government Dependency. Ryan Statement: “It is an incremental step toward greater dependency on government and will further expand federal health care entitlement spending that every member of Congress knows today is unsustainable.” [Ryan statement, House Budget Committee, 10/18/07]Ryan Opposed Emergency Funding For Children’s Health Care. [HR 2206, Vote #424, 5/24/07; CQ Floor Votes, 5/24/07]Ryan Opposed Expansion Of Children’s Health Care.. [HR 3162, Vote #787, 8/1/07; Congressional Quarterly House Action Reports, No. 110-21/July 31, 2007; Washington Post, 7/30/07]Ryan Voted Against Expanding The State Children’s Health Insurance Program. [HR 976, Vote #906, 9/25/07; CQ Floor Votes, 9/25/07]2007: RYAN VOTED AGAINST REVISED BILL TO REAUTHORIZE SCHIP THAT WOULD LIMIT SCHIP ELIGIBILITY TO FAMILIES EARNING AT OR LESS THAN THREE TIMES THE FEDERAL POVERTY LEVEL Ryan Voted Against Reauthorizing The State Children’s Health Insurance Program. In 2007, Ryan voted against a bill that would reauthorize the State Children’s Health Insurance Program at nearly $60 billion over five years, expanding the program by $35 billion. The bill passed 265-142. [HR 3963, Vote #1009, 10/25/07; CQ Weekly, 10/27/07]Emergency RoomsROMNEY: WE DO PROVIDE CARE FOR PEOPLE WHO DON’T HAVE INSURANCE, THROUGH EMERGENCY ROOMSWhen Asked If Government Had A Responsibility To Provide Healthcare To The Uninsured, Romney Said: “Well, We Do Provide Care For People Who Don’t Have Insurance, People—We—If Someone Has A Heart Attack, They Don’t Sit In Their Apartment And Die. We Pick Them Up In An Ambulance, And Take Them To The Hospital.” Pelley: “Does the government have a responsibility to provide health care to the 50 million Americans who don’t have it today?? Romney: Well, we do provide care for people who don’t have insurance, people—we—if someone has a heart attack, they don’t sit in their apartment and die. We pick them up in an ambulance, and take them to the hospital, and give them care. And different states have different ways of providing for that care.”? Pelley: “That’s the most expensive way to do it.”? Romney: “Well the—“? Pelley: “In an emergency room.”? Romney: “Different, again, different states have different ways of doing that. Some provide that care through clinics. Some provide the care through emergency rooms. In my state, we found a solution that worked for my state. But I wouldn’t take what we did in Massachusetts and say to Texas, ‘You’ve got to take the Massachusetts model.’” [60 Minutes, CBS News, 9/23/12]?EXPERTS ESTIMATE THAT 26,000 PEOPLE DIE PREMATURELY EVERY YEAR BECAUSE THEY DON’T HAVE COVERAGE“Across The Nation, 26,100 People Between The Ages Of 25 And 64 Died Prematurely Due?To A Lack Of Health Coverage In 2010.”?[Families USA, ?June 2012]AMERICANS WITHOUT HEALTH INSURANCE FACE STAGGERING MEDICAL BILLS THAT CAN LEAD TO BANKRUPTCYCBS News: In 2009, Medical Debt Was Number One Reason Behind Bankruptcy Filings In The U.S., Accounting For 62 Percent Of Personal Bankruptcies. “In 2009, a?study by the American Journal of Medicine?reported that medical debt was the number one reason behind bankruptcy filings in the U.S., accounting for 62 percent of personal bankruptcies.” [CBS News,?10/1/12]?American Journal Of Medicine: “62.1% Of All Bankruptcies In 2007 Were Medical.” [American Journal of Medicine, 4/12/09] “Uninsured Adults Are Three Times As Likely As The Insured To Have Been Unable To Pay For Basic Necessities Such As Housing Or Food Due To Medical Bills.” [Kaiser Family Foundation, October 2011]“In 2010, 27% Of Uninsured Adults Used Up All Or Most Of Their Savings Paying Medical Bills.” [Kaiser Family Foundation, October 2011] Kaiser Family Foundation: Hospitals Frequently Charge Uninsured Patients Two To Four Times More For Its Services Than Health Insurers Actually Pay. “Most of the uninsured do not receive health services for free or at reduced charge. Hospitals frequently charge uninsured patients two to four times what health insurers and public programs actually pay for hospital services.” [Kaiser Family Foundation, October 2011]Washington Post: Aggressive Debt Collection Is Another Problem With Emergency Room Care. “Aggressive debt-collection has shown to be another obstacle, with some hospitals demanding upfront payment prior to treatment. Medical debt collector Accretive Health recently paid a $2.5 million settlement over charges it was not complying with EMTALA. A few patients at Minnesota hospitals, which worked with Accretive, recounted their experiences in court documents?reported?in the New York Times.” [Washington Post, Wonk Blog, 9/24/12]UNINSURED AMERICANS DRIVE UP COSTS FOR THE HEALTH CARE SYSTEM AS A WHOLEThe Cost Of The Uninsured Added Over $1000 To Family Health Care Coverage.?“While people without health insurance often delay or forgo care, in 2008, the uninsured received $116 billion worth of care from hospitals, doctors, and other providers…. To make up for this uncompensated care, the costs were shifted to insurers in the form of higher charges for health services. These higher charges are then passed on to families and businesses as higher premiums. The impact of this hidden health tax on annual premiums for families and individuals in 2008 was as follows: For family health care coverage, the hidden health tax was $1,017. For health coverage provided to single individuals, the hidden health tax was $368.” [Families USA,?May 2009]CBS News: Health Care Costs Of Uninsured Are Shifted To Those With Insurance In The Form Of Higher Premiums.?“The healthcare costs incurred by those without insurance are eventually shifted to those with insurance in the form of higher premiums.” [CBS News,?10/1/12]?UNINSURED AMERICANS LACK ACCESS TO TIMELY PREVENTIVE CARE, WHICH “CAN BE A MATTER OF LIFE OR DEATH”Kaiser Family Foundation: Because They Often Lack Access To Timely Preventive Care, Uninsured Adults Are Diagnosed In Later Stages Of Diseases And Die Earlier Than Those With Insurance. “The uninsured are less likely than the insured to receive timely preventative care. Silent health problems, such as hypertension and diabetes, often go undetected without routine check-ups. Uninsured nonelderly adults, compared to those with coverage, are far less likely to have had regular preventative care, including cancer screenings. Consequently, uninsured patients are diagnosed in later stages of diseases, including cancer, and die earlier than those with insurance.” [Kaiser Family Foundation, October 2011]Washington Post Headline: “Yes, Insurance Status Does Matter For Your Health.” [Washington Post, WonkBlog, 10/11/12]University Of Pennsylvania Professor Zeke Emanuel: “In Almost Every Way We’ve Looked At It…If You’re Uninsured You Get Worse Or More Delayed Care.” “In almost every way we’ve looked at it…If you’re uninsured you get worse or more delayed care. In the case of cancer, this is something that can be a matter of life or death.” [Washington Post, WonkBlog, 10/11/12]ATTACKRomney’s Official Portrait Featured RomneycareROMNEYCARE WAS FEATURED IN ROMNEY’S OFFICIAL GUBERNATORIAL PORTRAIT Romney’s Gubernatorial Portrait Featured Symbols Romney Wanted To Convey For Posterity Including A Portrait Of His Wife Ann And An Official Looking Document Portraying Romneycare. Brian Moody’s profile on Romneycare published in the Boston Globe read: “The artist and former governor had already met at Romney’s vacation home in Wolfeboro,, N.H., to discuss the painting, and Romney was clear on the image he wanted to convey for posterity. He would be at his desk, wearing a light blue business suit and tie. Visible in the frame would be symbols of what he held dear and how he wanted to be remembered. One was a photo of Ann, center of his personal universe. The other was an official-looking document, with the symbol of the medical profession — the caduceus — embossed in gold on the cover. It stood for the Massachusetts health care law, passed in 2006, his final year as governor. Easily the most memorable achievement of his political career, it is now perhaps the biggest hurdle to achieving his presidential dream. ‘As long as the symbol was there, that was important,’ Whitney said. ‘He wanted to be remembered for that.’” [Brian Mooney, Boston Globe,6/26/11]Romneycare: Model For The NationSHORT:ROMNEY RELATEDLY SAID HIS MASSACHUSETTS PLAN WOULD BE “A MODEL FOR THE NATION”2007: Romney Said That The Massachusetts Plan “Will Be A Model For The Nation.” “During a speech in Baltimore on Feb. 2, 2007, Romney outlined his ambitions for the Massachusetts plan. ‘I’m proud of what we’ve done,’ he said. ‘If Massachusetts succeeds in implementing it, then that will be a model for the nation.’ Last month Romney’s dream came true. If Republicans knew what was good for them, they would stop treating it as a nightmare.” [Newsweek, 4/16/10]Romney Touted Romneycare During The National Health Care Reform Debate Saying “The Lessons We Learned In Massachusetts Could Help Washington… No Other State Has Made As Much Progress In Covering Their Uninsured.” Romney wrote in an op-ed about national health care reform being debated in Congress: “And the lessons we learned in Massachusetts could help Washington find it. No other state has made as much progress in covering their uninsured as Massachusetts.” [Romney Op-Ed, USA Today, 7/30/09]Romney On Whether The Massachusetts Plan Could Be A Model For The Country: “I Think There Are A Number Of Features In The Massachusetts Plan That Could Inform Washington On Ways To Improve Health Care For All Americans… A Model I Think They Could Learn From.” CNN’s Jim Acosta: “Do you think this plan, the Massachusetts plan could be a model for the country?” Romney: “I think there are a number of features in the Massachusetts plan that could inform Washington on ways to improve health care for all Americans. The fact that we have portable insurance and that we were about to get people insured without a government option is a model I think they could learn from.” [CNN, 8/20/09-8/22/09]Romney Told House Republicans That They “Should Be First To Propose A Republican Plan To Bring Health Insurance To All Americans” And Said “What We Did In Massachusetts Is A Good Model To Start From.” Romney said in a speech to House Republicans: “We should be first to propose a Republican plan to bring health insurance to all Americans, one based on market dynamics, free choice, and personal responsibility. I think what we did in Massachusetts is a good model to start from, but whatever direction we take, let’s not simply react to what the Democrats do. Their own plan would undoubtedly create a vast new system of costly entitlements and bureaucratic dictates, burdening the people and threatening the economy. Americans will be looking for a better alternative. Let’s give it to them.” [Romney Speech, House Republican Conference Retreat, 1/30/09]LONG:2009: ROMNEY TOUTED ROMNEYCARE AND SAID “THE LESSONS WE LEARNED IN MASSACHUSETTS COULD HELP WASHINGTON”Romney Touted Romneycare During The National Health Care Reform Debate Saying “The Lessons We Learned In Massachusetts Could Help Washington… No Other State Has Made As Much Progress In Covering Their Uninsured.” Romney wrote in an op-ed about national health care reform being debated in Congress: “And the lessons we learned in Massachusetts could help Washington find it. No other state has made as much progress in covering their uninsured as Massachusetts.” [Romney Op-Ed, USA Today, 7/30/09]2009: ROMNEY: ROMNEYCARE IS “A MODEL” THAT “COULD INFORM WASHINGTON ON WAYS TO IMPROVE HEALTH CARE FOR ALL AMERICANS”Romney On Whether The Massachusetts Plan Could Be A Model For The Country: “I Think There Are A Number Of Features In The Massachusetts Plan That Could Inform Washington On Ways To Improve Health Care For All Americans… A Model I Think They Could Learn From.” CNN’s Jim Acosta: “Do you think this plan, the Massachusetts plan could be a model for the country?” Romney: “I think there are a number of features in the Massachusetts plan that could inform Washington on ways to improve health care for all Americans. The fact that we have portable insurance and that we were about to get people insured without a government option is a model I think they could learn from.” [CNN, 8/20/09-8/22/09]2009: ROMNEY TOLD CONGRESSIONAL REPUBLICANS TO PROPOSE HEALTH INSURANCE REFORM AND USE ROMNEYCARE AS A MODELRomney Told House Republicans That They “Should Be First To Propose A Republican Plan To Bring Health Insurance To All Americans” And Said “What We Did In Massachusetts Is A Good Model To Start From.” Romney said in a speech to House Republicans: “We should be first to propose a Republican plan to bring health insurance to all Americans, one based on market dynamics, free choice, and personal responsibility. I think what we did in Massachusetts is a good model to start from, but whatever direction we take, let’s not simply react to what the Democrats do. Their own plan would undoubtedly create a vast new system of costly entitlements and bureaucratic dictates, burdening the people and threatening the economy. Americans will be looking for a better alternative. Let’s give it to them.” [Romney Speech, House Republican Conference Retreat, 1/30/09]Romney Touted His Massachusetts Health Care Plan And Said “I’m Going To Make Sure To Take Those Ideas, Pass Them Along To The Guys That Are In Power And See If Some Of Them Can’t Make A Difference For The Entire Nation.” Romney: “Congressman Cantor talks about, about health care and mentions something. Our little plan in our state did not hand out government insurance to the people who were uninsured. The 360,000 people that came onto our insurance rolls got private, free-market insurance and the average premium for an individual buying their own insurance in our state. I happen – let’s use an example of a single male buying insurance for himself in our state dropped by almost 50 percent with our plan. And that was for superior coverage with less – with a smaller deductible. So there are ways to solve problems if we look beyond the normal solutions, look beyond Washington, work with our people and I’m going to make sure to take those ideas, pass them along to the guys that are in power and see if some of them can’t make a difference for the entire nation.” [National Council For A New America's First Conversation, 5/2/09]ROMNEY SAID HIS MASSACHUSETTS PLAN WOULD BE “A MODEL FOR THE NATION”2007: Romney Said That The Massachusetts Plan “Will Be A Model For The Nation.” “During a speech in Baltimore on Feb. 2, 2007, Romney outlined his ambitions for the Massachusetts plan. ‘I’m proud of what we’ve done,’ he said. ‘If Massachusetts succeeds in implementing it, then that will be a model for the nation.’ Last month Romney’s dream came true. If Republicans knew what was good for them, they would stop treating it as a nightmare.” [Newsweek, 4/16/10]2006: Romney On Massachusetts Health Care Reform: If There Are “National Implications And Applicability, That Would Be Wonderful.” “Romney, whose father ran unsuccessfully for the GOP presidential nomination in 1968, said he understood the presidential implications of the health care bill but he didn’t want to talk about them. ‘I have nothing to add to that,’ he said with a laugh. ‘I actually ran with (health care reform) as something that I wanted to do. If there are national implications and applicability, that would be wonderful.’” [Associated Press, 4/5/06]2008: Romney: In Massachusetts I “Was Able To Put In Place A Plan That Helped Get Health Insurance Premiums Down, And Get All Of Our Citizens Insured. If We Can Do That Nationally, We Help…The Entire Nation.” Romney said, “One is to finally get a grip on the extraordinary increase in the cost of health care. That’s one of the big legacy cost features. I went after that in Massachusetts, was able to put in place a plan that helped get health insurance premiums down, and gets all of our citizens insured. If we can do that nationally, we help not only Michigan and the auto industry, but the entire nation.” [CNN, 1/14/08]2006: Romney: “There Are Some Aspects Of What We Proposed And Put In Our Health Plan That Actually Could Be Helpful For The Entire Nation And May Well Figure Into National Legislation.” Romney was asked about his health care reform; “Is this something you would consider proposing for the federal government as well?” Romney replied, “My current thinking on that is that the states as laboratories really play a very useful role for the nation. There are some aspects of what we proposed and put in our health plan that actually could be helpful for the entire nation and may well figure into national legislation.” [Interview, Human Events, 12/28/06]2006: Asked About The National Applicability Of His Health Care Experience Romney Touted The Principles Of Romneycare As A “Republican Way Of Solving A Problem Which We Face As A Nation.” In a discussion on Romneycare, Neil Cavuto asked: “I -- I do want to get into the particulars, Governor -- and I know you don't like to talk about presidential ambitions and all of that, but many in your party do. You have been written up, even in the latest ‘Newsweek,’ as presidential timber, given serious consideration. Would this be an issue that could go national?” ROMNEY: “Well, I think health care and education are two issues that the Democratic Party has held on to for a long time. But they haven't had answers. And, in education, they're so tied to the teachers union, they haven't been able to reform education. And, with regards to health care, they keep looking at a universal coverage, which means single payer and government takeover. And people don't want that either. So, this is really what the Democrats have talked about, a Democratic goal that we share, which is getting everybody, insured and solving the issue in a Republican way, which is applying a personal responsibility principle, reforming the market, and allowing people to buy private health care insurance, private insurance that they can take with them from job to job that's entirely portable. So, it's a Republican way of solving a problem which we face as a nation.” [Cavuto, Fox News, 4/12/06]Obamacare Was Crafted With Romneycare AdvisorsROMNEYCARE OFFICIALS HELPED WITH THE CREATION OF THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACTWhite House Visitor Logs Show A Dozen Meetings In 2009 With Three Health-Care Advisers And Experts Who Helped Shape RomneyCare In 2006 Including One In The Oval Office With President Obama. NBC wrote on Romney’s health care advisors, advising the White House on health care reform: “The records, gleaned from White House visitor logs reviewed by NBC News, show that senior White House officials had a dozen meetings in 2009 with three health-care advisers and experts who helped shape the health care reform law signed by Romney in 2006, when the Republican presidential candidate was governor of Massachusetts. One of those meetings, on July 20, 2009, was in the Oval Office and presided over by President Barack Obama, the records show.” [NBC, 10/11/11]White House Records Show Senior Obama Administration Officials Used Romneycare As A Model For The Affordable Care Act Including Recruiting Romney’s Own Health Care Advisers To Craft The National Bill. NBC wrote on Romney’s health care advisors, advising the White House on health care reform: “Newly obtained White House records provide fresh details on how senior Obama administration officials used Mitt Romney’s landmark health-care law in Massachusetts as a model for the new federal law, including recruiting some of Romney’s own health care advisers and experts to help craft the act now derided by Republicans as ‘Obamacare.’” [NBC, 10/10/11]The Hill Headline: “Architect Of Romney’s Health Bill Says It’s ‘The Same’ As Obama’s.” [Hill, 11/16/11]Jonathan Gruber: “Make No Mistake: The Affordable Care Act Is Based On Massachusetts’s Success,” And Several Of The Architects Of Romneycare Worked Closely With The Obama Administration “To Translate The Lessons From Massachusetts Onto The National Stage.”? Jonathan Gruber, Professor of Economics at MIT wrote,“The core of the ACA is the same ‘three legged stool’ that was first developed in Massachusetts. Several of the architects of Massachusetts reform, including myself, worked closely with the Administration and Congress to translate the lessons from Massachusetts onto the national stage. And experts project that the ACA will have similar success, reducing the number of uninsured Americans by 30 million.” [Jonathan Gruber Op-Ed, The Republican on MassLive, 4/11/12]MIT Professor Jon Gruber Who Helped Write Obamacare And The Massachusetts Health Care Law: “The Federal Reform Is Simply A More Ambitious Version Of The Massachusetts Reform.” “‘The federal reform is simply a more ambitious version of the Massachusetts reform,’ said Jon Gruber, a professor of economics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge who helped policy makers write both laws. ‘Within three years, we should see that the federal reform has covered the uninsured and stabilized the non-group market covering individuals who now face much higher premiums, Gruber said in a telephone interview.” [Bloomberg, 3/26/12]Romneycare Was The Model For ObamacareROMNEYCARE WAS THE MODEL FOR OBAMACAREHeadline: “Romneycare Was ‘Template’ For Obamacare” [James Pethokoukis, American Enterprise Institute, 1/26/12]Politifact Rated The Claim That Obamacare Was Patterned After Romneycare, “True.” “Pawlenty said that ‘Obamacare was patterned after Mitt's plan in Massachusetts.’ In rating that statement, we noticed that Pawlenty phrased his statement carefully. He didn't say it was the same plan, but instead said that the national law was ‘patterned’ after the Massachusetts law, and they had ‘substantial similarities.’ He's correct that the plans, thought not completely identical, are very similar in structure. They both require everyone to have health insurance or pay a penalty; they both leave the current insurance system in place; they both expand coverage for the uninsured through subsidies or Medicaid. Because his statement accurately categorized the plans as similar -- but not exactly the same -- we rate Pawlenty's statement True.” [PolitiFact, 8/12/11]Politifact: The Massachusetts Plan Did Serve As A Model For The Affordable Care Act. “‘Romneycare was model for Obamacare.’ Rick Perry on Tuesday, October 11th, 2011 in a tweet… Although the federal law isn’t an exact replica of the one in Massachusetts, the plan signed by Romney certainly served as a model. We rate the statement as True.” [Politifact, 10/21/11]Wall Street Journal: “Everyone Knows, The Health Reform Mr. Romney Passed In 2006 As Massachusetts Governor Was The Prototype For President Obama’s Version And Gave National Health Care A Huge Political Boost.”? [Editorial, Wall Street Journal, 5/12/11]Major ProvisionsAffordable Care ActMassachusetts Health LawIndividual MandateYesYesEmployer ResponsibilityYes — but not required to provide coverageYes — required to provide coverageAffordability CreditsYesYesStandard Benefit PackageYes — w/o abortion servicesYes — w/ abortion servicesEstablishes ExchangesYesYesProhibits Insurance Company From Canceling CoverageYesYesBans Denying Medical Coverage For Pre-existing ConditionsYesYesMedicaid ExpansionYesYesMedicare CutsYesNo Authority[Think Progress, 4/12/11]Romney Would Repeal ObamacareROMNEY AND RYAN VOWED TO REPEAL OBAMACARE AND “KILL IT DEAD ON ITS FIRST DAY”Romney: “If I’m President, I Will Repeal Obamacare, And I’ll Kill It Dead On Its First Day.” [Romney town hall, Collinsville, IL, 3/17/12]Romney: “Friday Is The Second Anniversary Of Obamacare. It Is Past Time To Abolish The Program, Root And Branch.” [Mitt Romney Op-Ed, USA Today, 3/22/12]2013 Ryan Budget Repealed Health Care Reform Bill. Here’s a review of the 32 votes taken since January 2011. Note that the vote count, provided by the office of the House Majority Whip, includes votes on final passage of bills and the passage of certain amendments related to the health-care law: … 28.) March 29, 2012: The Fiscal 2013 Federal Budget: This spending proposal also repealed and defunded the health law.” [, 7/11/12]Romney Wanted Tax Penalties For Free RidersROMNEYCARE WAS THE MODEL FOR THE PENALTY STRUCTURE NOW USED IN OBAMACARECNN: “As It Turns Out The Tax Penalty In The President’s Health Care Law Was Modeled After The Reform Plan Passed In Massachusetts Under Then Governor Mitt Romney.” [CNN, 6/29/12]Politico: “Semantics Aside” Under Romney’s Health Care Law “Residents Who Fail To Obtain Insurance Face A Penalty On Their Tax Returns — In Fact, A Steeper One Than Is Imposed Under Obama’s Health Law” And “The Penalty Is Collected By The State’s Version Of The IRS.” “Semantics aside, the national law draws its structure from the health care law Romney signed in 2006 as the governor of Massachusetts. There, too, residents who fail to obtain insurance face a penalty on their tax returns — in fact, a steeper one than is imposed under Obama’s health law. The penalty is collected by the state’s version of the IRS — the Department of Revenue — and sent to its general treasury. Gov. Deval Patrick rejects the notion that the individual mandate penalty is a tax, but when pressed on a Friday conference call, he agreed that the court’s logic means Romney, too, is a tax raiser. ‘I suppose it does,’ he said. ‘What they ruled is that the penalty paid for failing to get insurance is a tax.’” [Politico, 6/29/12]Economist Job Gruber Who Helped Craft Romneycare: “If You Want To Think Of It As A Tax, Then It Is Exactly The Same Tax … Romney Imposed.” “‘I don't think of the mandate as a tax — I think of it is a free rider penalty.? But if you want to think of it as a tax, then it is exactly the same tax … Romney imposed,’ said Jon Gruber, the MIT economist who helped craft the Massachusetts and national laws, in an email to POLITICO.”[Politico, 6/29/12]Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation President: “If One’s A Tax, The Other’s A Tax.” “Michael Widmer, president of the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation — a business-backed fiscal watchdog that has analyzed the state’s health care law for years — agreed. ‘If one’s a tax, the other’s a tax,’ he said.” [Politico, 6/29/12]ROMNEY PROMOTED THE USE OF TAX PENALTIES TO STOP FREE RIDERS2009: Romney Touted That “Using Tax Penalties, As We Did, Or Tax Credits, As Others Have Proposed, Encourages ‘Free Riders’ To Take Responsibility For Themselves Rather Than Pass Their Medical Costs On To Others.” ??In the op-ed titled Mr. President, What’s The Rush? during the discussion about federal health care legislation Romney wrote, "Our experience also demonstrates that getting every citizen insured doesn’t have to break the bank. First, we established incentives for those who were uninsured to buy insurance. Using tax penalties, as we did, or tax credits, as others have proposed, encourages ‘free riders’ to take responsibility for themselves rather than pass their medical costs on to others. This doesn’t cost the government a single dollar." [Romney Op-Ed, USA Today, 7/30/09]2010: Romney Said Of The Individual Mandate In Romneycare: “If You Can Afford To Get Insurance, You Ought To Buy Insurance. And If You Don’t Buy It You’re Going To Get Penalized With A Higher Tax Rate For Not Having Gotten Insurance.” “ROMNEY: Right now people who can afford to buy insurance make the decision I’m not going to buy insurance. I’m going to be a free rider. And if I get sick or get in a serious accident, then government’s going to pay for me. That in my view is the big government solution we have right now. The alternative – there are a couple alternatives – one is to say to employers you must give insurance to every one of your employees. I said no I don’t want to do that. That’s going to kill jobs. And the other alternative is to say to people if you can afford to get insurance, you ought to buy insurance. And if you don’t buy it you’re going to get penalized with a higher tax rate for not having gotten insurance. Now you tell me which of those is the big government plan and which is the personal responsibility plan. In my opinion saying to people who can afford to buy insurance, buy it, is the personal responsibility plan. And giving people who can afford insurance but instead get free care is the big government plan. We solved our problem in the way that I described in Massachusetts with a bill that’s about 70 pages long and we have all our citizens insured. To make markets work people have to pay for stuff by the way. If they get something for free, markets can’t work. So the first step in making something market able is by having people have to pay for what they’re getting. Otherwise they get it for free and the markets don’t operate.” [Claremont McKenna College, 4/15/10]?2007: Romney Said The “Teeth” Oh His “Enforcement Mechanism” Was Due To “Kick In” In 2008 “When They Get Their Tax Bill Because If They Haven’t Bought Insurance, They’re Charged $100 A Month For Not Having Bought Insurance.” “These were people that used to go get free care, now they’re paying something. Now they know that their healthcare makes a difference to their pocketbook. They’re part of the system, that’s part of the revenue that came in – no more free ride. Everybody pays what they can afford. "And the final group, which are people earning over three times poverty level, the teeth in our enforcement mechanism don’t kick in until probably next April when they get their tax bill because if they haven’t bought insurance, they’re charged $100 a month for not having bought insurance.” [Governor Romney, Remarks at the Florida Medical Association, 8/24/07]2006: Romney Said He Expected Those Who Could Afford Insurance To Get It Or Else “We're Going To Withhold Their Tax Refund Or Put In Place Other Penalties To Assure That Everybody Comes In The System.” Romney: “For those that have higher incomes, we expect them to have health insurance. And if they don't we're going to withhold their tax refund or put in place other penalties to assure that everybody comes in the system.” [Fox News with Brit Hume, 4/5/06]2005: Romney Was Asked If The “Individual Mandate” Which Could Lead To “Garnishing Of Wages And Tax Penalties” Was Part Of His Plan, To Which He Replied, “Absolutely.” Romney was interviewed by Hugh Hewitt who said “Of course, the Globe ran with the harshest part. The individual mandate, which could lead to garnishing of wages even, and tax penalties. Is that part of your plan?” Romney replied, “Absolutely, which is if somebody shows up at the hospital, and they can afford to pay, and they haven't bought insurance, they can't just say look. I don't want to pay for this bill. I'm going to walk away.” [Romney Interview with Hugh Hewitt, 6/23/05; Transcript Via Radio Blogger, 6/23/05]ROMNEY TOUTED THE TAX PENALTIES IN A PRESS RELEASE ANNOUNCING HIS SIGNATURE ON THE MASSACHUSETTS HEALTH REFORM LAWRomney Press Release Described Tax Penalties For Non-Compliance To Health Care Law.?“Beginning on January 1, 2008, failure by individuals to purchase health insurance will result in the loss of their state tax refund equal to 50 percent of an affordable health insurance premium. ?Penalties will be assessed for each month without creditable coverage.” [Governor’s Office Press Release, 4/12/06]Romney Doesn’t Have A Health Care PlanROMNEY VOWED TO REPEAL OBAMACARE BUT HASN’T SAID WHAT HE WOULD REPLACE IT WITHNew York Magazine’s Jonathan Chait:? “In Other Words, It’s Not True. Romney Doesn’t Have A Plan, Or Even A Vague Outline Of A Plan, To Cover People With Preexisting Conditions.”? [Jonathan Chait, New York Magazine, 9/10/12]Washington Post: “On Health Care, Romney Has Pledged That, On His First Day In Office, He Would Begin Repealing The Law That He And Other Republicans Call ‘Obamacare,’ But He Has Not Fully Detailed What He Would Seek To Replace It With.” [Washington Post, 5/22/12]Huffington Post’s Sam Stein: “The Devil Is Ultimately In The Details Of The Actual Plan—Though As The Washington Post’s Ezra Klein Notes, There Are Precious Few Available.” [Sam Stein, Huffington Post, 6/13/12]Associated Press Headline: “Romney Health Care Vision Short On Details.” [Associated Press, 6/13/12]Associated Press: Despite The Approaching Supreme Court Ruling On Obamacare, Romney’s Health Care Plans “Were Short On Detail And Raised Questions About How The Nation’s 50 Million Uninsured Might Fare Under His Leadership.” “With the Supreme Court ruling expected this month, the Republican presidential contender is eager to look forward and offer his own prescriptions for the health care system that voters consistently rank among their priorities. Romney’s plans, however, were short on detail and raised questions about how the nation’s 50 million uninsured might fare under his leadership. Romney ignored the primary strategies he pursued as governor of Massachusetts. There, he signed into law a measure that insures virtually all of its citizens by requiring insurance policies and offering subsidies to those who can’t afford it. The so-called ‘individual mandate’ is at the heart of the case before the Supreme Court on the law’s constitutionality.” [Associated Press, 6/13/12]Romney Has No Plan For People With Preexisting ConditionsSHORTROMNEY’S PLAN FOR PEOPLE WITH PRE-EXISTING CONDITIONS WOULD GO BACK TO ALLOWING INSURANCE COMPANIES TO DENY THEM COVERAGE New York Magazine’s Jonathan Chait:? “In Other Words, It’s Not True. Romney Doesn’t Have A Plan, Or Even A Vague Outline Of A Plan, To Cover People With Preexisting Conditions.”? [Jonathan Chait, New York Magazine, 9/10/12]New York Daily News Headline: “Mitt Romney: Insurance Companies Should Be Allowed To Deny Coverage For Pre-Existing Conditions.” [New York Daily News, 6/14/12]?Huffington Post Headline: “Mitt Romney's Health Care Plan Would Not Prohibit Discrimination Based On Pre-Existing Conditions.” [Sam Stein, Huffington Post, 6/13/12]ABC Fact Check: “Mitt Romney Does Not Think Insurance Companies Should Have To Cover People With Pre-Existing Conditions Who Have Not Had Continuous Health Care Coverage.” [ABC, 10/3/12]? Politico Fact Check: Romney’s Proposal Would Cover Only Those With Pre-Existing Conditions Who Have Continuous Coverage – “It Doesn’t Help Sick People Who Have Had A Break In Coverage Or Couldn’t Get It Before.” “Romney’s health care plan covers ‘individuals with pre-existing conditions who maintain continuous coverage.’ That’s an important caveat: It doesn’t help sick people who have had a break in coverage or couldn’t get it before. It’s also fairly close to what the law already provided before ‘Obamacare’ — people who moved from job to job were already covered.” [Politico, 10/4/12]LONGROMNEY SAID OF THOSE WITH A PREEXISTING CONDITION WHO DON’T HAVE INSURANCE AND WANT TO GET IT LATER IN LIFE: “WE CAN’T PLAY THAT GAME”Romney Suggested Uninsured People With Pre-Existing Conditions Should Not Be Able To Get Health Insurance: “We Can't Play The Game Like That.” Jay: “So you would make the law stand for children and people with pre-existing conditions?” Romney: “People with pre-existing conditions, as long as they have been insured before, they are going to be able to continue to have insurance.” Leno: “Suppose they haven't been insured.” Romney: “Well, if they, if they are 45 years old and they show up and say I want insurance because I have heart disease, it's like, Hey guys. We can't play the game like that. You've got to get insurance when you are well and then if you get ill, you are going to be covered.”? [Romney, Tonight Show With Jay Leno, 3/27/12]Romney In Discussing What He Would Replace Obamacare With: “People With Pre-Existing Conditions, As Long As They Have Been Insured Before, They Are Going To Be Able To Continue To Have Insurance.” [Romney, Tonight Show With Jay Leno, 3/27/12]ROMNEY’S PLAN OF “CONTINUOUS COVERAGE” WAS THE STANDARD BEFORE OBAMACARE – OBAMACARE WILL STOP INSURANCE COMPANIES FROM DENYING PEOPLE REGARDLESS OF THEIR PRIOR INSURED STATUSRomney’s Plan Equates To The 1996 HIPAA Law That Makes It Difficult For Employers To Exclude A New Worker’s Preexisting Condition Provided He Or She Did Not Have A Gap In Coverage.?“The continually insured — the other two-thirds of the population — already have a decently well-protected guarantee to coverage. HIPAA, a federal law passed in 1996, makes it difficult for employers to exclude a new worker’s preexisting condition provided he or she did not have a gap in coverage. That is to say, much of what Romney intends to do here is already law.”? [Wonk Blog, Washington Post, 9/9/12]Romney’s “Continuous Coverage” Idea Is Different From Obamacare Which Stipulates That Anyone Can Gain Access To Health Coverage Regardless Of Their Prior Insured Status. “But continuous coverage isn’t so great for the individual who has spent sometime without insurance, perhaps because of difficult financial times. Continuous coverage won’t do much for you in that situation.That’s different from the health-care law, which stipulates that in 2014, anyone can gain access to health coverage regardless of his or her prior insured status. If Romney wanted to keep that kind of protection against pre-existing insurance in place — but without an individual mandate — insurance premiums would likely increase, as the sick people who planned to use their coverage disproportionately signed up. Continuous coverage is one way to address pre-existing conditions; Congress has already used it as a tool to limit group health plans that deny such coverage. But, with the many people it has the potential to leave out, it’s hard to see it as a full solution.” [Wonk Blog, Washington Post, 9/9/12]ABC News: “Romney’s Position – Protecting People With Pre-Existing Conditions So Long As They’ve Always Had Insurance – Has Been Law Since 1996, Experts Say.”? [ABC News, 6/14/12]??ROMNEY WOULD GO BACK TO ALLOWING INSURANCE COMPANIES TO DENY COVERAGE TO PEOPLE WITH PRE-EXISTING CONDITIONSNew York Magazine’s Jonathan Chait:? “In Other Words, It’s Not True. Romney Doesn’t Have A Plan, Or Even A Vague Outline Of A Plan, To Cover People With Preexisting Conditions.”? [Jonathan Chait, New York Magazine, 9/10/12]Huffington Post Headline: “Mitt Romney's Health Care Plan Would Not Prohibit Discrimination Based On Pre-Existing Conditions.” [Sam Stein, Huffington Post, 6/13/12]Politico Fact Check: Romney’s Proposal Would Cover Only Those With Pre-Existing Conditions Who Have Continuous Coverage – “It Doesn’t Help Sick People Who Have Had A Break In Coverage Or Couldn’t Get It Before.” “Romney’s health care plan covers ‘individuals with pre-existing conditions who maintain continuous coverage.’ That’s an important caveat: It doesn’t help sick people who have had a break in coverage or couldn’t get it before. It’s also fairly close to what the law already provided before ‘Obamacare’ — people who moved from job to job were already covered.” [Politico, 10/4/12]ABC Fact Check: “Mitt Romney Does Not Think Insurance Companies Should Have To Cover People With Pre-Existing Conditions Who Have Not Had Continuous Health Care Coverage.” [ABC, 10/3/12]? ??…WHICH MEANS ROMNEY’S PLAN WOULDN’T HAVE PROTECTED 89 MILLION AMERICANS WHO HAVE HAD A GAP IN COVERAGEWashington Post Headline: “Who Would Be Left Out Of Romney’s Preexisting Conditions Plan? About 89 Million Americans.” [Wonk Blog, Washington Post, 9/10/12]Washington Post: 89 Million Americans “Would Be Unlikely To Be Protected Under The Type Of Preexisting Conditions Ban That Romney Has Proposed.” “That’s how it works for those who never lose coverage. Then, there are the other 89 million. Some are young; some are old. Some didn’t have coverage for four years; some only dropped for a month. But they all have something in common: They would be unlikely to be protected under the type of preexisting conditions ban that Romney has proposed.” [Wonk Blog, Washington Post, 9/10/12]Romney Attacked Emergency Room CareROMNEY SAID PEOPLE WITHOUT INSURANCE GOING TO THE EMERGENCY ROOM FOR CARE IS “MORE EXPENSIVE TO GOVERNMENT AND TO THE REST OF US”…Romney Described Developing Romneycare: “We Need To Find A Way To Get Them Insurance, So They Get Better Care. And They Cost Us Less Money… They Won't Be Showing Up At The Emergency Room, Which Is Far More Expensive To Government And To The Rest Of Us.” Asked about the political implications Romneycare could have on his candidacy for the Republican nomination, Mitt Romney said: “You know, when I set out to find a way to get everybody health insurance, I couldn't have cared less, and I don't care less, about how it works politically. In my view, it's the right thing to do. It's a key issue that faces many, many people across the country that don't have health insurance. We need to find a way to get them insurance, so they get better care. And they cost us less money. Our analysis shows that having people insured means that they will get preventative care and primary care. They won't be showing up at the emergency room, which is far more expensive to government and to the rest of us. So, this is an approach that makes sense. You know, I think, with time, that those who take a look at it are going to say, this -- this really is a good solution. And it's not the Democratic way. I recognize that some of my Democratic friends said, you know what? This is a pretty good idea. But this does not have an employer mandate. This does not have a government takeover. There's no government control of this system. Instead, individual companies can offer products in Massachusetts which they couldn't offer yesterday. Now they're going to be able to offer new products. People can buy them, take them with them. It's a Republican way of reforming the market, because, let me tell you, having 30 million people in this country without health insurance and having those people show up when they get sick, and expect someone else to pay, that's a Democratic approach. That's the wrong way. The Republican approach is to say, you know what? Everybody should have insurance. They should pay what they can afford to pay. If they need help, we will be there to help them, but no more free ride.” [Cavuto, Fox News, 4/12/06]ROMNEY SAID IT WAS “VERY INEFFICIENT” FOR PEOPLE WITHOUT HEALTH INSURANCE TO GO TO THE EMERGENCY ROOM FOR CARERomney Complained That People Without Insurance “Have To Go To The Emergency Room Of A Hospital If They Need Care, And Receive Care There For Which We Collectively Pay” Which Is “A Very Inefficient System.” Romney: “The third thing that comes to mind relates to health care. It doesn’t make a lot of sense to me that we have a half a million people without health insurance in Massachusetts. Recognize that you and we are all paying for their health care. These people don’t find themselves in a position where they can’t get any health care. No, they have to go to the emergency room of a hospital if they need care, and receive care there for which we collectively pay, as we should. But it’s a very inefficient system. Inefficient for hospital emergency rooms to have to have to treat the half million people who don’t have the ability to go to a doctor and get a prescription on a normal basis. It’s an inefficient way for this individual to have to go wait in line without an appointment for care that might be simply treated by just visiting a physician if they had health insurance. We have to change our system and more appropriately align our resources so that all of our citizens can have access to good, solid, basic, quality health care.” [WBZ News Radio 1030, Business Breakfast Series, 5/6/03]Romney: “I Believe That We Should Be Able To Provide For All Of Our Citizens A Basic, Good, Solid Health Care System And That Means That We Don't Use The Inefficient System We Have Now Where Half A Million People Without Insurance Go To Emergency Rooms.” [AP, 5/26/03]ROMNEY DESCRIBED PEOPLE WITHOUT INSURANCE GOING TO THE EMERGENCY ROOM FOR CARE AS “THE FREE RIDER PROBLEM”Romney: In Massachusetts “We Had A Number Of Citizens Who Recognized That They Could Get Coverage, Health Care, Even Though They Didn't Have Insurance” Because They Could Go To The Emergency Room, But “This Was What We Call A Free Rider Problem.” Romney said in his health care address: “Let me tell you why there is a mandate in our plan. What we found in my state was that we had a number of citizens who recognized that they could get coverage, health care, even though they didn't have insurance. That's actually true in most states. If you don't have insurance and you develop a serious illness of some kind, cancer or a heart attack, you can get care, emergency care. You may not get the preventative care you need, you may not get all the follow-up care you'd need, but depending upon the state and circumstances, you can get care without insurance. And many citizens who could afford insurance, having learned they could get care for free, were saying, I'm not going to buy insurance. If I'm healthy and strong, why would I get insurance? Because if something really bad happens to me, if I get cancer or something awful like that, I can go to the hospital and I can get treated for free. This was what we call a free rider problem. It wasn't a large number but a growing number.” [Romney, Health Care Address, 5/12/11]Romney On “Free Riding”: “I'm Not Going To Get Insurance, Even Though I Can Afford It. I'm Instead Going To Just Show Up And Make The Taxpayers Pay For Me.” “‘No more “free riding,” if you will, where an individual says: “I'm not going to pay, even though I can afford it. I'm not going to get insurance, even though I can afford it. I'm instead going to just show up and make the taxpayers pay for me,”’ Romney told reporters after a healthcare speech at the John F. Kennedy Library.” [Boston Globe, 7/22/05]Romney: “We Found That About 40% Of Them Could Afford Insurance, But Choose Instead To Be Free Riders, Which Is Not Buy The Insurance, But To Show Up At The Hospital And Expect Free Care. And We're Saying No, You Can't Do That. You've Got To Get Yourself Some Insurance, Or Pay For Your Care Yourself.” [Romney Interview with Hugh Hewitt, 6/23/05; Transcript Via Radio Blogger, 6/23/05]Romney: “What We’ve Found Is That If You Have People Who Sit Outside The System And Instead Just Show Up At The Hospital When They’re Sick And Expect Someone Else To Pay, That’s A Free-Rider System.” [ABC News, 4/6/06]HOUSINGPRO-POTUSPresident Obama Has Helped Millions Of Homeowners Fight Foreclosure And Stay In Their HomesPRESIDENT OBAMA’S EFFORTS TO ASSIST STRUGGLING HOMEOWNERS HELPED DRIVE FORECLOSURES TO A FIVE-YEAR LOW August 2012: President Obama’s Efforts To Assist Struggling Homeowners Helped Drive Foreclosures To A Five-Year Low. “The wave of foreclosures hitting the nation's housing market has been much less severe than anticipated, with foreclosure filings at their lowest level in five years last month, according to a report out Thursday. Foreclosure filings -- including default notices, scheduled auctions and bank repossessions -- were reported on 180,427 properties in September, a 7% decline from August and down more than 16% from a year earlier, according to a report released Thursday by RealtyTrac, an online marketer of foreclosed properties. That's the lowest number of filings since September 2007… Part of the reason for theoverall improvement is that the government's and the banks' efforts to prevent homeowners from falling into foreclosure have taken hold. The government sponsored Home Affordable Modification Program has helped more than a million borrowers obtain more affordable mortgages.” [CNN Money, 10/11/12]PRESIDENT OBAMA HAS HELPED MORE THAN FIVE MILLION FAMILIES FIGHT FORECLOSURE AND STAY IN THEIR HOMES THROUGH MORTGAGE MODIFICATIONPresident Obama’s Efforts Have Helped More Than 5 Million Americans Stay In Their Homes And Fight Foreclosure Through Permanent Mortgage Modification. According to the May 2012 National Housing Scorecard, over 1 million HAMP permanent modifications, more than 1.4 million FHA loss mitigation interventions, and 3 million HOPE Now modifications have been started between April 2009 and August 2012. Cumulatively, this means that President Obama’s initiatives have worked to spur more [September National Housing Scorecard, 10/5/12]Since April 2009, There Have Been More Than Nearly Twice As Many Mortgage Modifications Initiated As Foreclosures. Since April 1, 2009, more than 5.6 million mortgage modifications have been initiated – nearly twice the 3 million cumulative foreclosures completed in the same time period. [September National Housing Scorecard, 10/5/12]PRESIDENT OBAMA HAS HELPED OVER 1.5 MILLION FAMILIES REFINANCE THEIR MORTGAGES AND IS PUSHING CONGRESS TO HELP MORE RESPONSIBLE FAMILIES SAVE THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS ON THEIR MORTGAGES EACH YEARThe Obama Administration Launched The Home Affordable Refinance Program, Which Has Helped Over 1.5 Million Responsible Homeowners Stay In Their Homes And Save On Their Mortgages Through Refinancing. According to the Federal Housing Finance Agency, the Home Affordable Refinance Program has assisted 1,541,190 homeowners between April 2009 and July 2012. [Federal Housing Finance Agency July 2012 Refinancing Report, 9/7/12]More Than One In Four Loan Refinances Are Now Occurring Through HARP. “HARP volume as a percentage of total refinance volume has steadily grown in 2012 compared to 2011 as HARP enhancements took effect in the first and second quarters of this year. HARP volume represented 27 percent of total refinance volume in July 2012.” [Federal Housing Finance Agency July 2012 Refinancing Report, 9/7/12]February 2012: President Obama Announced A Plan To Allow Responsible Borrowers To Save An Average Of $3,000 Per Year By Refinancing.?“The Obama administration on Wednesday detailed its latest plan to help millions of homeowners refinance their mortgages to today's historically-low rates. The plan, which requires approval by Congress, would allow borrowers who are current on their mortgage to save an average of $3,000 a year by refinancing into loans backed by the Federal Housing Administration, according to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. The plan is estimated to cost between $5 billion and $10 billion. To pay for it, President Obama said he does not plan to add to the deficit. Instead, he wants to impose a fee on large banks -- a move that may have a hard time making it past members of Congress, who have rejected the notion of taxing the banks in the past.” [CNN,?2/1/12]Expanding Access To Refinancing Has Bipartisan Support In The Senate. Republican Senators Johnny Isakson, Richard Burr, Scott Brown and Saxby Chambliss signed a letter with 13 Democrats “urging the Obama administration to quickly implement administrative reforms to help millions of responsible homeowners refinance and take advantage of today’s record low interest rates.” [Press Release of Senator Barbara Boxer, 10/11/11] President Obama Is Winding Down Fannie And FreddieTHE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION HAS ALREADY ACTED TO REFORM FANNIE MAE AND FREDDIE MAC, ENDING THEIR PERVERSE PROFIT MODEL THAT HURT TAXPAYERS WHILE ACCELERATING THEIR WIND-DOWN BY FOUR YEARSThe Obama Administration Reformed Fannie Mae And Freddie Mac’s Profit Model, “Ending A Perverse Cycle Where Fannie And Freddie Were Borrowing From The Government Simply To Make Quarterly Repayments.” “The Treasury Department on Friday revamped its financial support of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to accelerate the pace at which the mortgage-finance giants will pay back the government for its rescue four years ago. In the latest change to a nearly four-year-old rescue, the Treasury Department will capture all the profits that they post in any given quarter, rather than requiring a 10% annual dividend payment. They won't require payments in periods when the firms lose money, ending a perverse cycle where Fannie and Freddie were borrowing from the government simply to make quarterly repayments.” [Wall Street Journal, 8/17/12]The Obama Administration Rewrote The Terms Of The Conservatorship Of Fannie And Freddie To Accelerate The Downsizing Of The Firms' Mortgage Portfolios By Four Years.? “The revised bailout terms also accelerate the downsizing of the firms' mortgage portfolios. The firms will have to shrink those portfolios by 15% annually beginning next year, up from the 10% annual reduction currently required. That means the firms' portfolios, which can be no larger than $650 billion each at the end of the year, will fall to the final cap of $250 billion by 2018, four years earlier than previously scheduled.” [Wall Street Journal, 8/17/12]THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION HAS PROVIDED A PATH FORWARD FOR REFORMING AMERICA’S HOUSING MARKET, INCLUDING A FINAL PLAN TO WIND DOWN FANNIE MAE AND FREDDIE MACFebruary 2011: The Obama Administration Provided Congress With A Path Forward For Reforming America’s Housing Market, Including A Plan To Wind Down Fannie Mae And Freddie Mac. “The Obama administration on Friday officially unveiled its plan to remake the mortgage market and reduce the government's role in housing finance by winding down Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The highly anticipated ‘white paper’ outlines steps the administration says will help draw private capital back into the mortgage market, curb unfair lending practices and make federal support for borrowers more targeted. The plan would phase in changes over a period of years and push back the most dramatic restructuring, which would require congressional approval, until as late as 2018.” [CNN Money, 2/11/11]Moody’s Chief Economist Mark Zandi: President Obama Laid Out A “Prudent, Appropriate Plan” For Housing Market Reform. “Mark Zandi, chief economist for , told CNBC that the Obama administration had ‘laid out a prudent, appropriate plan.’ ‘At the end of the day, though, the government is going to have to play some role in a catastrophic backstop,’ he said.” [Washington Post, 2/11/11]Pushback: President Obama Is Helping Responsible HomeownersPRESIDENT OBAMA STABILIZED THE HOUSING MARKET AND HELPED RESPONSIBLE HOMEOWNERS AVOID FORECLOSURE THROUGH PROGRAMS TO SUPPORT HOMEOWNERS President Obama: “We Must Stem The Spread Of Foreclosures And Falling Home Values For All Americans, And Do Everything We Can To Help Responsible Homeowners Stay In Their Homes.” “We will need to end the culture where we ignore problems until they become full-blown crises instead of recognizing that the only way to build a thriving economy is to set and enforce firm rules of the road. We must stem the spread of foreclosures and falling home values for all Americans, and do everything we can to help responsible homeowners stay in their homes -- something I'll talk more about tomorrow.” [Remarks By The President And The Vice President At Signing Of The American Recovery And Reinvestment Act, 2/17/09]August 2012: President Obama’s Efforts To Assist Struggling Homeowners Helped Drive Foreclosures To A Five-Year Low. “The wave of foreclosures hitting the nation's housing market has been much less severe than anticipated, with foreclosure filings at their lowest level in five years last month, according to a report out Thursday. Foreclosure filings -- including default notices, scheduled auctions and bank repossessions -- were reported on 180,427 properties in September, a 7% decline from August and down more than 16% from a year earlier, according to a report released Thursday by RealtyTrac, an online marketer of foreclosed properties. That's the lowest number of filings since September 2007… Part of the reason for theoverall improvement is that the government's and the banks' efforts to prevent homeowners from falling into foreclosure have taken hold. The government sponsored Home Affordable Modification Program has helped more than a million borrowers obtain more affordable mortgages.” [CNN Money, 10/11/12]Moody’s Analytics Chief Economist Mark Zandi: “The Obama Administration Deserves Credit For Quickly Ending The Housing Free Fall.” “Voters judging President Obama’s economic policies this fall have a lot to think about. There is the fiscal stimulus, the auto bailout, saving Wall Street and then reforming it, not to mention health-care reform. How the administration handled the foreclosure crisis probably won’t figure large in the picture. But it should… The Obama administration deserves credit for quickly ending the housing free fall. In particular, Obama empowered the Federal Housing Administration to ensure that households could find mortgages at low interest rates even during the worst phase of the financial panic. When banks were making few loans of any kind, mortgage borrowers could still obtain credit because of the FHA.” [Washington Post Editorial By Mark Zandi, 9/28/12]PRESIDENT OBAMA HAS HELPED MILLIONS OF FAMILIES FIGHT FORECLOSURE AND STAY IN THEIR HOMES THROUGH MORTGAGE MODIFICATIONPresident Obama’s Efforts Have Helped More Than 5 Million Americans Stay In Their Homes And Fight Foreclosure Through Permanent Mortgage Modification. According to the May 2012 National Housing Scorecard, over 1 million HAMP permanent modifications, more than 1.4 million FHA loss mitigation interventions, and 3 million HOPE Now modifications have been started between April 2009 and August 2012. Cumulatively, this means that President Obama’s initiatives have worked to spur more [September National Housing Scorecard, 10/5/12]Since April 2009, There Have Been More Than Nearly Twice As Many Mortgage Modifications Initiated As Foreclosures. Since April 1, 2009, more than 5.6 million mortgage modifications have been initiated – nearly twice the 3 million cumulative foreclosures completed in the same time period. [September National Housing Scorecard, 10/5/12]PRESIDENT OBAMA HAS HELPED OVER 1.5 MILLION FAMILIES REFINANCE THEIR MORTGAGES AND IS PUSHING CONGRESS TO HELP MORE RESPONSIBLE FAMILIES SAVE THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS ON THEIR MORTGAGES EACH YEARThe Obama Administration Launched The Home Affordable Refinance Program, Which Has Helped Over 1.5 Million Responsible Homeowners Stay In Their Homes And Save On Their Mortgages Through Refinancing. According to the Federal Housing Finance Agency, the Home Affordable Refinance Program has assisted 1,541,190 homeowners between April 2009 and July 2012. [Federal Housing Finance Agency July 2012 Refinancing Report, 9/7/12]More Than One In Four Loan Refinances Are Now Occurring Through HARP. “HARP volume as a percentage of total refinance volume has steadily grown in 2012 compared to 2011 as HARP enhancements took effect in the first and second quarters of this year. HARP volume represented 27 percent of total refinance volume in July 2012.” [Federal Housing Finance Agency July 2012 Refinancing Report, 9/7/12]February 2012: President Obama Announced A Plan To Allow Responsible Borrowers To Save An Average Of $3,000 Per Year By Refinancing.?“The Obama administration on Wednesday detailed its latest plan to help millions of homeowners refinance their mortgages to today's historically-low rates. The plan, which requires approval by Congress, would allow borrowers who are current on their mortgage to save an average of $3,000 a year by refinancing into loans backed by the Federal Housing Administration, according to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. The plan is estimated to cost between $5 billion and $10 billion. To pay for it, President Obama said he does not plan to add to the deficit. Instead, he wants to impose a fee on large banks -- a move that may have a hard time making it past members of Congress, who have rejected the notion of taxing the banks in the past.” [CNN,?2/1/12]PRESIDENT OBAMA HAS FOUGHT TO BRING JUSTICE FOR HOMEOWNERS WHO SUFFERED FROM ABUSE AND FORECLOSURE DURING THE HOUSING CRISISThe Obama Administration Negotiated A $25 Billion Landmark Mortgage Settlement With The Nation’s Largest Banks, Providing Over $20 Billion In Immediate Relief To Struggling Homeowners Through Refinancing And Mortgage Modification. “The five major banks involved in the settlement: Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase, Wells Fargo, Citigroup, and Ally Financial will pay roughly $25 billion in penalties and relief to borrowers, states and the federal government. According the terms outlined today, the big banks will pay: $20 billion in direct consumer relief, with $17 billion going to principal reduction, and $3 billion to help underwater borrowers refinance their mortgages at lower rates; $4.25 billion of cash will be distributed to states, with $1.5 billion going out as checks to borrowers who were victims of foreclosure abuses, and $2.75 distributed to state governments to help with foreclosure prevention efforts; and $750 million will be paid to the federal government to pay for similar efforts.” [TIME, 2/9/12]The Obama Administration Reached The Largest Fair-Lending Settlement In History, Winning A Record $335 Million To Compensate 200,000 Americans Who Were Charged More For Home Loans Based On Race And National Origin. “Bank of America Corp. (BAC) will pay a record $335 million to compensate Countrywide Financial Corp. borrowers who were charged more for home loans based on race and national origin. Countrywide, acquired by Bank of America in 2008, assessed higher fees and interest rates to more than 200,000 black and Hispanic borrowers, the U.S. Department of Justice said yesterday in a statement. The lender also steered minorities into higher-cost subprime mortgages from 2004 to 2007, even when they qualified for prime loans, the agency said.” [Bloomberg, 12/21/11]President Obama Signed Into Law Wall Street Reform, Which Cracks Down On Abuses In The Mortgage System That Contributed To The Housing Crisis, Like No-Downpayment Loans And Confusing Mortgages. “…Dodd-Frank, which marks its one-year anniversary on July 21, is expected to take those changes a few steps farther. The new rules are designed to tighten additional weaknesses in the mortgage system that contributed to the crisis, including no-downpayment loans, the ‘originate-to-distribute’ business model, and mortgages with confusing terms and deceptively low teaser rates.” [Bloomberg, 7/12/11]President Obama Has Fought Against Housing Market AbusesPRESIDENT OBAMA DOES NOT BELIEVE MEMBERS OF THE MILITARY WHO HAVE SERVED THIS COUNTRY SHOULD RETURN ONLY TO FIND THEIR HOMES TAKEN AWAYPRESIDENT OBAMA STOOD UP FOR VETERANS WHO WERE WRONGFULLY FORECLOSED UPONAs Part Of The Mortgage Servicing Settlement, Banks Were Directed To Grant Any Service Member Who Was Wrongfully Foreclosed Upon Will Get A Payment Equal To Their Lost Equity, Plus Interest, Plus An Additional $116,000. “To resolve allegations of liability that have not previously been settled, Chase, Citi, Wells Fargo, and Ally have agreed to conduct a full review, overseen by the Department of Justice's Civil Rights Division, to determine whether any servicemembers were foreclosed on in violation of the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA) since January 1, 2006. Ally, Citi, Wells Fargo will be required to provide any servicemember who was a victim of a wrongful foreclosure as a result of a violation of the SCRA with a payment equal to the servicemember's lost equity, plus interest, and an additional $116,785 or an amount provided for the same violation under the review conducted by the banking regulators, whichever is higher. To ensure consistency with an earlier settlement, JP Morgan Chase will provide any servicemember who was a victim of a wrongful foreclosure as a result of a violation of the SCRA either his or her home free and clear of any debt plus compensation for additional harm or the cash equivalent of the full value the home at the time of sale plus compensation for additional harm.” [Housing And Urban Development Mortgage Servicing Settlement Fact Sheet, 3/6/12]BANKS WILL PAY $10 MILLION INTO A VETERANS HOUSING BENEFITS FUND, WHICH SUPPORTS MORTGAGES FOR VETERANSAdditionally, Banks Were Required To Pay $10 Million Into A Veterans Housing Benefits Program Fund, Which Supports Mortgages For Vets. “$10 million will be paid into the Veterans Housing Benefit Program Fund through which the Department of Veterans Affairs guarantees loans provided on favorable terms to eligible veterans. In addition, except where prohibited by statutory requirements, veterans with VA-guaranteed mortgages will be eligible for relief provided through the servicers' $20 billion consumer relief obligations.” [Housing And Urban Development Mortgage Servicing Settlement Fact Sheet, 3/6/12]?THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION HAS BEEN AND WILL CONTINUE TO AGGRESSIVELY INVESTIGATE AND PROSECUTE THE ABUSIVE PRACTICES THAT COLLAPSED THE HOUSING MARKET THIS PAST JANUARY, PRESIDENT OBAMA ESTABLISHED A FEDERAL-STATE TASK FORCE TO INVESTIGATE HOUSING ABUSES ACROSS THE COUNTRYPresident Obama Established A Joint Federal-State Mortgage Crisis Unit To Probe Bank Conduct That Created The Housing Crisis. “President Barack Obama’s mortgage investigation unit will probe bank conduct that created the housing bubble and bust, including the packaging of loans into securities, the New York Attorney General said… The joint federal-state mortgage investigative unit will be part of a task force Obama created in 2009 by executive order to investigate and prosecute financial fraud cases. The task force, led by Attorney General Eric Holder, is made up of 20 federal agencies, including the Justice, Treasury, Commerce and Labor departments, 94 U.S. attorneys and state and local agencies. The new unit is an attempt to better coordinate efforts among the federal and state agencies in the task force, according to the Justice Department. Schneiderman said the unit will also investigate mortgage origination.” [Bloomberg, 1/25/12]September 2012: The Head Of The President’s Task Force Field A Law Suit Against JP Morgan Chase Over Faulty Mortgages That Were Packaged And Sold To Investors During The Housing Bubble. “New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman on Monday filed a lawsuit against JPMorgan Chase over allegedly faulty mortgages that were packaged and sold to investors during the housing bubble.It is the first suit filed as part of the work related to a mortgage fraud task force the Obama administration formed in January and charged Schneiderman and four others to lead.” [Politico, 10/2/12]ALTOGETHER, THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION CHARGED OVER 2,700 DEFENDANTS WITH MORTGAGE FRAUD CRIMES IN THE LAST THREE FISCAL YEARS – A 92 PERCENT INCREASE IN SUCH PROSECUTIONSSeptember 2012: The Justice Department Reported Filing Mortgage Fraud Cases Against 2,700 Defendants The Past Three Fiscal Years. “Over the past three fiscal years, the Justice Department has filed more than 10,000 financial fraud cases against nearly 15,000 defendants including more than 2,700 mortgage fraud defendants. For more information on the task force, visit .” [Department of Justice Press Release, 9/7/12]June 2012: The Department Of Justice Reported A 92 Percent Increase In Mortgage Fraud Prosecutions Across The Nation Since Fiscal Year 2009. “The Department of Justice has remained vigilant in seeking and prosecuting mortgage fraud, resulting in a 92 percent increase in mortgage fraud prosecutions across the nation since fiscal year 2009.” [Department of Justice Press Release, 6/26/12]Pushback: President Obama’s Policies Didn’t WorkUNDER PRESIDENT OBAMA, FORECLOSURES ARE AT A FIVE-YEAR LOW, AND HIS PROGRAMS HAVE WORKED TO STABILIZE THE MARKETAugust 2012: President Obama’s Efforts To Assist Struggling Homeowners Helped Drive Foreclosures To A Five-Year Low. “The wave of foreclosures hitting the nation's housing market has been much less severe than anticipated, with foreclosure filings at their lowest level in five years last month, according to a report out Thursday. Foreclosure filings -- including default notices, scheduled auctions and bank repossessions -- were reported on 180,427 properties in September, a 7% decline from August and down more than 16% from a year earlier, according to a report released Thursday by RealtyTrac, an online marketer of foreclosed properties. That's the lowest number of filings since September 2007… Part of the reason for theoverall improvement is that the government's and the banks' efforts to prevent homeowners from falling into foreclosure have taken hold. The government sponsored Home Affordable Modification Program has helped more than a million borrowers obtain more affordable mortgages.” [CNN Money, 10/11/12]Moody’s Analytics Chief Economist Mark Zandi: “The Obama Administration Deserves Credit For Quickly Ending The Housing Free Fall.” “Voters judging President Obama’s economic policies this fall have a lot to think about. There is the fiscal stimulus, the auto bailout, saving Wall Street and then reforming it, not to mention health-care reform. How the administration handled the foreclosure crisis probably won’t figure large in the picture. But it should… The Obama administration deserves credit for quickly ending the housing free fall. In particular, Obama empowered the Federal Housing Administration to ensure that households could find mortgages at low interest rates even during the worst phase of the financial panic. When banks were making few loans of any kind, mortgage borrowers could still obtain credit because of the FHA.” [Washington Post Editorial By Mark Zandi, 9/28/12July 2012: Home Prices In The U.S. Saw Their Largest Yearly Advance In Nearly Two Years. “Home prices in the U.S. climbed more than forecast in July from a year earlier, adding to signs that housing will spur economic growth. The S&P/Case-Shiller index of property values in 20 cities increased 1.2 percent from July 2011, the biggest 12-month advance since August 2010, a report from the group showed today in New York. The median forecast of 24 economists surveyed by Bloomberg called for a 1.05 percent gain. The lowest mortgage rates on record are attracting buyers, helping absorb the supply of distressed properties that had depressed values. A stabilization in residential real estate may also be contributing to recent gains in consumer confidence that, combined with improving household wealth, will lead to a pickup in spending, the biggest part of the economy.” [Bloomberg, 9/25/12]Chairman Of The Index Committee At S&P Dow Jones Indices David M. Blitzer: “Single Family Housing Starts Are Well Ahead Of Last Year's Pace, Existing Home Sales Are Up, The Inventory Of Homes For Sale Is Down And Foreclosure Activity Is Slowing.” “The news on home prices in this report confirm recent good news about housing. Single family housing starts are well ahead of last year’s pace, existing home sales are up, the inventory of homes for sale is down and foreclosure activity is slowing. All in all, we are more optimistic about housing. Upbeat trends continue. For the third time in a row, all 20 cities and both Composites had monthly gains. Stronger housing numbers are a positive factor for other measures including consumer confidence.” [S&P Dow Jones Indices Press Release, 9/25/12]October 2012: After Six Months Of Consecutive Gains, Homebuilder Confidence Hit Its Highest Level In More Than Six Years. “Builder confidence in October edged higher to mark the sixth gain in a row and the top reading in more than six years, a trade group said Tuesday in the latest indicator of a revival in the housing market. The National Association of Home Builders/Wells Fargo housing market index nudged up 1 point to 41, marking the highest level since June 2006.” [MarketWatch, 10/16/12]Homeowner Equity Is Now At Its Highest Level Since The Third Quarter Of 2008, And Helped Lift 1.3 Million Families Above Water. “Rising home values have brought homeowner equity to its highest level since the third quarter of 2008 and helped lift 1.3 million families above water. Homeowner equity jumped$406 billion, or 5.9 percent, to $7,275 billion in the secondquarter of 2012. After a sharp first quarter rise, total equity hasgrown to $863 billion, or 13.5 percent, since the end of 2011. The number of underwater borrowers has declined by 11 percent since the end of last year, from 12.1 million in the 4th quarter of 2011 to 10.8 million in the second quarter of 2012.”[September National Housing Scorecard, 10/5/12]CONTRASTUnlike Romney, President Obama Has Helped Families Facing ForeclosurePRESIDENT OBAMA’S EFFORTS TO ASSIST STRUGGLING HOMEOWNERS HELPED DRIVE FORECLOSURES TO A FIVE-YEAR LOWAugust 2012: President Obama’s Efforts To Assist Struggling Homeowners Helped Drive Foreclosures To A Five-Year Low. “The wave of foreclosures hitting the nation's housing market has been much less severe than anticipated, with foreclosure filings at their lowest level in five years last month, according to a report out Thursday. Foreclosure filings -- including default notices, scheduled auctions and bank repossessions -- were reported on 180,427 properties in September, a 7% decline from August and down more than 16% from a year earlier, according to a report released Thursday by RealtyTrac, an online marketer of foreclosed properties. That's the lowest number of filings since September 2007… Part of the reason for theoverall improvement is that the government's and the banks' efforts to prevent homeowners from falling into foreclosure have taken hold. The government sponsored Home Affordable Modification Program has helped more than a million borrowers obtain more affordable mortgages.” [CNN Money, 10/11/12]PRESIDENT OBAMA HAS HELPED MORE THAN FIVE MILLION FAMILIES FIGHT FORECLOSURE AND STAY IN THEIR HOMES THROUGH MORTGAGE MODIFICATIONPresident Obama’s Efforts Have Helped More Than 5 Million Americans Stay In Their Homes And Fight Foreclosure Through Permanent Mortgage Modification. According to the May 2012 National Housing Scorecard, over 1 million HAMP permanent modifications, more than 1.4 million FHA loss mitigation interventions, and 2.98 million HOPE Now modifications have been started between April 2009 and May 2012. Cumulatively, this means that President Obama’s initiatives have worked to spur more than 5 million permanent mortgage modifications have been started through the last three years. [National Housing Scorecard, 8/3/12]President Obama Launched The Home Affordable Modification Program, Which Has Helped Over 1 Million Homeowners Save A Median Of $537 In Monthly Mortgage Payments Through Permanent Mortgage Modifications. “More than 1 million homeowners have received a permanent modification through the Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP). These homeowners have reduced their first lien mortgage payments by a median of approximately $537 each month – more than one-third of their median before-modification payment – saving a total estimated $13.9 billion to date in monthly mortgage payments.” [Making Home Affordable Program Performance Report, 8/2/12]PRESIDENT OBAMA HAS HELPED OVER 1.5 MILLION FAMILIES REFINANCE THEIR MORTGAGES AND IS PUSHING CONGRESS TO HELP MORE RESPONSIBLE FAMILIES SAVE THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS ON THEIR MORTGAGES EACH YEARThe Obama Administration Launched The Home Affordable Refinance Program, Which Has Helped Over 1.5 Million Responsible Homeowners Stay In Their Homes And Save On Their Mortgages Through Refinancing. According to the Federal Housing Finance Agency, the Home Affordable Refinance Program has assisted 1,541,190 homeowners between April 2009 and July 2012. [Federal Housing Finance Agency July 2012 Refinancing Report, 9/7/12]February 2012: President Obama Announced A Plan To Allow Responsible Borrowers To Save An Average Of $3,000 Per Year By Refinancing.?“The Obama administration on Wednesday detailed its latest plan to help millions of homeowners refinance their mortgages to today's historically-low rates. The plan, which requires approval by Congress, would allow borrowers who are current on their mortgage to save an average of $3,000 a year by refinancing into loans backed by the Federal Housing Administration, according to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. The plan is estimated to cost between $5 billion and $10 billion. To pay for it, President Obama said he does not plan to add to the deficit. Instead, he wants to impose a fee on large banks -- a move that may have a hard time making it past members of Congress, who have rejected the notion of taxing the banks in the past.” [CNN,?2/1/12]PRESIDENT OBAMA HAS FOUGHT TO BRING JUSTICE FOR HOMEOWNERS WHO SUFFERED FROM ABUSE AND FORECLOSURE DURING THE HOUSING CRISISThe Obama Administration Negotiated A Landmark Mortgage Settlement With The Nation’s Largest Banks, Who Will Pay $25 Billion In Penalties And Relief To Victims Of Foreclosure Abuses. “The five major banks involved in the settlement: Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase, Wells Fargo, Citigroup, and Ally Financial will pay roughly $25 billion in penalties and relief to borrowers, states and the federal government. According the terms outlined today, the big banks will pay: $20 billion in direct consumer relief, with $17 billion going to principal reduction, and $3 billion to help underwater borrowers refinance their mortgages at lower rates; $4.25 billion of cash will be distributed to states, with $1.5 billion going out as checks to borrowers who were victims of foreclosure abuses, and $2.75 distributed to state governments to help with foreclosure prevention efforts; and $750 million will be paid to the federal government to pay for similar efforts.” [TIME, 2/9/12]ROMNEY AND RYAN CALLED FOR FORECLOSURES TO “HIT THE BOTTOM” ??Las Vegas Sun Headline: “Romney And Ryan Both Say They Want Housing Market To ‘Hit Bottom’” [Jon Ralston, Las Vegas Sun, 8/14/12]Romney And Ryan Both Called For The Housing Market To “Hit Bottom.” “Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan used remarkably similar verbiage to describe their approach to the crippled housing market, with each suggesting in separate interviews almost a year apart that the market should be allowed to ‘hit bottom.’ Ryan made his remarks first on Charlie Rose's program in 2010 and Romney followed with those now-infamous words to the Las Vegas Review Journal last year. Play the Ryan clip back to back with the Romney clip and you will notice the similarities.” [Jon Ralston, Las Vegas Sun, 8/14/12]Las Vegas Sun Editorial: Romney Said He Wants To Move Quickly By Having Foreclosures “Washed Through The System” Meaning Even More Foreclosures. “In an interview with the Las Vegas Sun, Romney said ‘the key thing for me is let the market do its work. Get the foreclosures washed through the system ... let the market rebound from the bottom that it hits, and get people back into homes.’ In other words, Romney doesn’t want the government involved but instead wants the market left on its own. And he wants it to move quickly by having foreclosures ‘washed through the system,’ meaning even more foreclosures.” [Editorial, Las Vegas Sun, 10/30/11]?CONGRESSIONAL REPUBLICANS, INCLUDING RYAN, HAVE BLOCKED PRESIDENT OBAMA’S EFFORTS TO HELP RESPONSIBLE HOMEOWNERS REFINANCECongressional Republicans Objected To Obama’s Proposal To Allow Homeowners To Refinance Their Mortgages At Lower Interest Rates. “Citing historically low mortgages, President Barack Obama is pressing Republicans to back housing policies the White House says would help struggling homeowners refinance their debts and prevent foreclosures. Obama is blaming congressional Republicans for not passing legislation he proposed in February that would lower lending rates for millions of borrowers who have not been able to get out from under burdensome mortgages. Republicans have objected, citing among other things the estimated $5 billion to $10 billion cost of the proposal.” [Associated Press, 9/29/12]Ryan: Housing Market “Is Going To Have To Hit Bottom Before It Can Come Up … It’s Better To Clear The System Out.” “Housing is going to have to hit bottom before it can come up. And, you know, it’s going to be a bump. We have a bad vintage of loans coming through the system of foreclosures coming through the system. If you put a moratorium on these things you’re simply delaying the inevitable. So it’s better to clear the system out and have sound money, have stable interest rates so we can go forward in the future.” [The Charlie Rose Show, 9/15/10]ATTACKRomney’s Housing Plan: Let Foreclosures Hit The BottomROMNEY AND RYAN CALLED FOR FORECLOSURES TO “HIT THE BOTTOM” ??Las Vegas Sun Headline: “Romney And Ryan Both Say They Want Housing Market To ‘Hit Bottom’” [Jon Ralston, Las Vegas Sun, 8/14/12]Romney And Ryan Both Called For The Housing Market To “Hit Bottom.” “Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan used remarkably similar verbiage to describe their approach to the crippled housing market, with each suggesting in separate interviews almost a year apart that the market should be allowed to ‘hit bottom.’ Ryan made his remarks first on Charlie Rose's program in 2010 and Romney followed with those now-infamous words to the Las Vegas Review Journal last year. Play the Ryan clip back to back with the Romney clip and you will notice the similarities.” [Jon Ralston, Las Vegas Sun, 8/14/12]ROMNEY SAID HE WANTED FORECLOSURES TO BE QUICKLY “WASHED TROUGH THE SYSTEM” MEANING MORE FORECLOSURESLas Vegas Sun Editorial: Romney Said He Wants To Move Quickly By Having Foreclosures “Washed Through The System” Meaning Even More Foreclosures. “In an interview with the Las Vegas Sun, Romney said ‘the key thing for me is let the market do its work. Get the foreclosures washed through the system ... let the market rebound from the bottom that it hits, and get people back into homes.’ In other words, Romney doesn’t want the government involved but instead wants the market left on its own. And he wants it to move quickly by having foreclosures ‘washed through the system,’ meaning even more foreclosures.” [Editorial, Las Vegas Sun, 10/30/11]?CONGRESSIONAL REPUBLICANS, INCLUDING RYAN, HAVE BLOCKED PRESIDENT OBAMA’S EFFORTS TO HELP RESPONSIBLE HOMEOWNERS REFINANCECongressional Republicans Objected To Obama’s Proposal To Allow Homeowners To Refinance Their Mortgages At Lower Interest Rates. “Citing historically low mortgages, President Barack Obama is pressing Republicans to back housing policies the White House says would help struggling homeowners refinance their debts and prevent foreclosures. Obama is blaming congressional Republicans for not passing legislation he proposed in February that would lower lending rates for millions of borrowers who have not been able to get out from under burdensome mortgages. Republicans have objected, citing among other things the estimated $5 billion to $10 billion cost of the proposal.” [Associated Press, 9/29/12]Ryan: Housing Market “Is Going To Have To Hit Bottom Before It Can Come Up … It’s Better To Clear The System Out.” “Housing is going to have to hit bottom before it can come up. And, you know, it’s going to be a bump. We have a bad vintage of loans coming through the system of foreclosures coming through the system. If you put a moratorium on these things you’re simply delaying the inevitable. So it’s better to clear the system out and have sound money, have stable interest rates so we can go forward in the future.” [The Charlie Rose Show, 9/15/10]Romney Opposed The Consumer Financial Protection BureauROMNEY CRITICIZED THE CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU, CLAIMING IT THREATENED CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLES AND WAS “PERHAPS THE MOST POWERFUL AND UNACCOUNTABLE BUREAUCRACY” IN AMERICA’S HISTORYRomney: The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Threatens Important Constitutional Principles Because It Is “Headed By A Single Director Over Whom Congress Has No Budgetary Oversight.” Question: “Which executive powers, if any, claimed and exercised by the Bush and/or Obama administrations were unconstitutional in your view? Were there any such powers that were simply a bad idea?” Romney: “I am also deeply troubled by other actions the Obama Administration has taken that threaten important constitutional principles. These include: … His creation of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau as an independent agency headed by a single director over whom Congress has no budgetary oversight.” [Questionnaire, New York Times, 12/29/11]Romney Called The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau “Perhaps The Most Powerful And Unaccountable Bureaucracy In The History Of Our Nation.” From the Romney statement on the recess appointment of Richard Cordray to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau: “President Obama’s Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is perhaps the most powerful and unaccountable bureaucracy in the history of our nation, headed by a powerful and unaccountable bureaucrat with unprecedented authority over the economy. Instead of working with Congress to fix the flaws in this new bureaucracy, the President is declaring that he ‘refuses to take no for an answer’ and circumventing Congress to appoint a new administrator.” [Romney For President, 1/4/12]IMMIGRATIONPRO-POTUSToplines – Comprehensive Immigration ReformPRESIDENT OBAMA HAS AFFIRMED HIS COMMITMENT TO ACHIEVING COMPREHENSIVE IMMIGRATION REFORMIn His 2012 State Of The Union Address, President Obama Said: “We Should Be Working on Comprehensive Immigration Reform Right Now.” “I believe as strongly as ever that we should take on illegal immigration.? That’s why my administration has put more boots on the border than ever before.? That’s why there are fewer illegal crossings than when I took office.? The opponents of action are out of excuses.? We should be working on comprehensive immigration reform right now.”? [White House, Remarks by the President In State of the Union Address, 1/24/12]PRESIDENT OBAMA WORKED TO BUILD A CONSENSUS TOWARDS ENACTING COMPREHENSIVE IMMIGRATION REFORMIn 2009, Expressing A Desire To “Actively Get Something Done” Around Comprehensive Immigration Reform, And “Not Put It Off.” President Obama Met With Lawmakers Of Both Parties To Work Towards An Agreement. “President Barack Obama began a push for comprehensive immigration reform Thursday, meeting with members of Congress to seek bipartisan help in reaching an accord on the politically explosive issue. Although he did not set a deadline for passing legislation, Obama said he and the group of about 30 lawmakers who gathered at the White House ‘want to actively get something done and not put it off until a year, two years, three years, five years from now.’” [Arizona Republic, 6/26/09]In August 2009, President Obama And Secretary Napolitano Held A White House Meeting To Discuss Immigration Policy With More Than 100 Representatives From Groups Supporting Immigration Reform. “At the White House meeting Thursday, both Obama and Napolitano reaffirmed their support for immigration reform to more than 100 representatives from labor, business, law enforcement, religious organizations and immigrant rights groups. The assembly broke into smaller groups to share ideas about how to address the main pieces of a comprehensive reform package: enforcement, guest workers, family visas and legalization of the nation's estimated 11 million illegal immigrants. In a teleconference call Friday, several attendants expressed satisfaction with the meeting as a good step forward.” [Los Angeles Times, 8/22/09]President Obama And Administration Officials Spurred Senators Schumer And Graham Towards Introducing A Comprehensive Immigration Reform Bill, Pushing For A Blueprint In Early 2010.? “Despite steep odds, the White House has discussed prospects for reviving a major overhaul of the nation's immigration laws, a commitment that President Obama has postponed once already. Obama took up the issue privately with his staff Monday in a bid to advance a bill through Congress before lawmakers become too distracted by approaching midterm elections. In the session, Obama and members of his Domestic Policy Council outlined ways to resuscitate the effort in a White House meeting with two senators -- Democrat Charles E. Schumer of New York and Republican Lindsey Graham of South Carolina -- who have spent months trying to craft a bill.? According to a person familiar with the meeting, the White House may ask Schumer and Graham to at least produce a blueprint that could be turned into legislative language.” [Los Angeles Times, 3/5/10]Toplines – DREAM ActPresident Obama Supports The DREAM Act, STALLED IN CONGRESS, To Offer A Path To Legal Status For Young People Brought To The U.S. Through No Fault Of Their OwnPresident Obama Said That?If A Law Is Passed To Stop Expelling Young People From This Country, “I Will Sign It Right Away.” “But if election-year politics keeps Congress from acting on a comprehensive plan, let’s at least agree to stop expelling responsible young people who want to staff our labs, start new businesses, defend this country.? Send me a law that gives them the chance to earn their citizenship.? I will sign it right away.”?[Remarks by the President In State of the Union Address, 1/24/12]THE DREAM ACT HISTORICALLY HAD WIDESPREAD BIPARTISAN SUPPORT BUT STALLED IN CONGRESS DUE TO REPUBLICAN OBSTRUCTIONISMThe DREAM Act “Already Has Widespread Bipartisan Support,” And Was Nearly Enacted In 2007. “First introduced in 2001, the DREAM Act, however, already has widespread bipartisan support. It nearly passed the Senate in 2007, falling short by a few votes. The bill was introduced again last March. The College Board, which represents more than 5,000 schools and administers the SAT college entrance exams, supports the legislation. … Although many illegal immigrants work and pay taxes, giving their children a chance to attend college or serve in the military would help those families contribute more to the economy with better jobs and higher wages. That's no substitute for a new immigration policy that addresses the larger issues. But the DREAM Act can be a first step to put the children of illegal immigrants on the right path.” [Editorial, Philadelphia Inquirer, 3/6/10]In 2004, The DREAM Act Was Introduced By Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT) And Had 47 Senate Co-Sponsors, Including Senators Brownback (R-KS), Craig (R-ID), Coleman (R-MN), Crapo (R-ID), Lugar (R-IN), McCain (R-AZ) And Specter (R-PA).? [Library of Congress, THOMAS Legislative Information System, Cosponsors For S.1545, Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors Act of 2003 (108th Congress), accessed 1/6/2012]Charlotte Observer Editorial: “Republicans In Congress [Are] Blocking The Sensible DREAM Act Legislation;” Obama’s Stand On This Issue Is “Long-Held And Publicly Stated.” “Congress' refusal to approve the Dream Act, an immigration bill that would create a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants brought to the U.S. as children, have angered Hispanic leaders. Obama's poll numbers among those voters has been dropping. Still, the change is consistent with Obama's long-held and publicly stated stand on this issue. With Republicans in Congress blocking the sensible Dream Act legislation, this change is a welcome step to achieve that goal.” [Editorial, Charlotte Observer, 8/21/11]The DREAM Act Failed To Advance In The U.S. Senate In 2010, Falling “Victim To A GOP Filibuster.” “A last-ditch Democratic effort to establish a path to citizenship for some children of illegal immigrants failed in the Senate on Saturday, likely derailing any attempt at sweeping immigration reform in Congress for the foreseeable future. The bill, known as the Dream Act, had passed the House, and its advocates and Democratic sponsors hoped that they could muster enough Republican votes to bring the legislation to the floor. Instead, it fell victim to a GOP filibuster, one in which a handful of Democrats also blocked the bill. The final tally was 55 to 41.” [Los Angeles Times, 12/19/10]Only Three Republican Senators Voted To Support The DREAM Act In A December 2010 Vote, While Most Republicans Voted Against It. “On a 55-to-41 vote, the Senate on Saturday failed to proceed on a bill that would have provided a path to citizenship for young people who were brought to the country illegally as children. Five Democrats -- Sens. Max Baucus (Mont.), Kay Hagan (N.C.), Ben Nelson (Neb.), Mark Pryor (Ark.) and Jon Tester (Mont.) -- joined most Republicans in voting against the measure, known as the DREAM Act. Three Republicans, Sens. Bob Bennett (Utah), Richard Lugar (Ind.) and Lisa Murkowski (Alaska), voted yes.” [Washington Post, 12/18/10]Five Republican Senators Who Were Co-Sponsors Of The DREAM Act In 2003 Voted To Defeat It Or Abstained From Voting On It In 2010. Senators Brownback (R-KS), Collins (R-ME), Crapo (R-ID), Grassley (R-IA), McCain (R-AZ), and Hatch (R-UT) were co-sponsors of the DREAM Act in 2003, but either voted against it or abstained from voting on a measure to bring it to the Senate floor in December 2010. Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah, was the original sponsor of the 2003 DREAM Act, but abstained from voting on it in 2010.? [Library of Congress, THOMAS Legislative Information System, Cosponsors For S.1545, Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors Act of 2003 (108th Congress), accessed 1/6/12] ; [U.S. Senate Roll Call Vote #278 (H.R. 5281, 111th Cong.), Y:55 (D-51, R-3, I-1), N: 41 (R-39, D-5) NV:4 (R-3, D-1), 12/18/10]Toplines – Deferred ActionWHEN CONGRESS FAILED TO ACT, THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION ANNOUNCED A POLICY CHANGE TO?LIFT THE SHADOW OF DEPORTATION FROM YOUNG PEOPLE BROUGHT TO THIS COUNTRY THROUGH NO FAULT OF THEIR OWN President Obama: “Effective Immediately, The Department Of Homeland Security Is Taking Steps To Lift The Shadow Of Deportation From These Young People.”? “Effective immediately, the Department of Homeland Security is taking steps to lift the shadow of deportation from these young people.? Over the next few months, eligible individuals who do not present a risk to national security or public safety will be able to request temporary relief from deportation proceedings and apply for work authorization.” [Remarks By The President On Immigration, 6/15/12]The Obama Administration’s Policy Would Temporarily Protect Undocumented Immigrants From Deportation If They Came To The U.S. Before They Turned 16 And Are Currently Younger Than 30.? “Under the administration plan, illegal immigrants will be immune from deportation if they were brought to the United States before they turned 16 and are younger than 30, have been in the country for at least five continuous years, have no criminal history, graduated from a U.S. high school or earned a GED, or served in the military.” [Associated Press, 6/15/12]Under The Obama Administration’s Policy, Young Undocumented Immigrants Would Be Allowed To Apply For A Two-Year, Renewable Work Permit. “They also can apply for a work permit that will be good for two years with no limits on how many times it can be renewed. The officials who described the plan spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss it in advance of the official announcement. The policy will not lead toward citizenship but will remove the threat of deportation and grant the ability to work legally, leaving eligible immigrants able to remain in the United States for extended periods.” [Associated Press, 6/15/12]President Obama: This Action “Is Not Amnesty, This Is Not Immunity. This Is Not A Path To Citizenship. It’s Not A Permanent Fix. This Is A Temporary Stopgap Measure.”? “Now, let's be clear -- this is not amnesty, this is not immunity.? This is not a path to citizenship.? It's not a permanent fix.? This is a temporary stopgap measure that lets us focus our resources wisely while giving a degree of relief and hope to talented, driven, patriotic young people.? It is the right thing to do.” [Remarks By The President On Immigration, 6/15/12]THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION HAS ALREADY RECEIVED ABOUT 82,000 APPLICATIONS FOR DEFERRED ACTION FOR CHILDHOOD ARRIVALS9/14/12: The Obama Administration Had Received About 82,000 Applications For Deferred Action For Childhood Arrivals And Notified The First Recipients During That Week.? “Spokesman Peter Boogaard said that as of Friday, U.S. Immigration and Citizenship Services had received about 82,000 applications from illegal immigrants hoping to qualify for the administration's Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program. The first immigrants to win the reprieve were notified this week. They will be allowed to stay in the United States for up to two years and be given permission to work; applications can be renewed every two years. Boogaard said another 1,600 applications are awaiting final review. USCIS started accepting applications for the program on Aug. 15. The first approvals came well ahead of the department's own internal estimates that it could take four to six months for an application, including fingerprints and a background check, to be fully reviewed.” [Associated Press, 9/14/12]Toplines – EnforcementUNTIL COMPREHENSIVE IMMIGRATION REFORM IS PASSED, THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION HAS PRIORITIZED REMOVING PEOPLE WITH CRIMINAL RECORDS OVER INDIVIDUALS OR FAMILIES WHO ARE CONTRIBUTING TO OUR SOCIETYPresident Obama Has Refocused Immigration Enforcement On Criminals And The Borders. In an interview with Univision’s Eddie Sotelo, President Obama said, “What we’ve been able to do is, administratively, we’ve said, let’s reemphasize our focus when it comes to enforcement on criminals and at the borders and let’s not be focusing our attention on hard-working families who are just trying to make ends meet.” [Univision News, 2/23/12]The Department Of Homeland Security Instructed That Special Consideration Be Given To Military Veterans And College Students Brought To The United States As Children Before Pursuing Charges Or Deportation. “A memo issued by Immigration and Customs Enforcement Director?John Morton?on Friday instructs all officers, agents and government attorneys to consider a wide range of factors before charging people with being in the country illegally or pushing ahead with their deportation cases… Special consideration should be given to witnesses and victims of crimes, relatives of U.S. citizens and green card holders, military veterans and college students brought to the U.S. as children, according to the guidelines.” [Houston Chronicle, 6/20/11]The Obama Administration Increased Removal Of Undocumented Criminals By 70% In 2010 Compared to 2008. “Under the Obama Administration, ICE has developed for the first time since its establishment priorities for immigration enforcement in the interior. In August 2010, ICE issued clear guidance on its civil enforcement priorities, which reflect a focus on the removal of individuals who pose a danger to national security or public safety, with a particular focus on convicted criminals, as well as the removal of recent border violators, those who have been previously deported, and fugitives. As a result, the deportation of aliens with criminal records increased by more than 70 percent in 2010 as compared to 2008.” [White House Immigration Blueprint, 5/10/11]Charlotte Observer Editorial: The Obama Administration’s Decision To Prioritize Immigration Enforcement To Focus On Criminals Over Those Who Pose No Threat To Their Communities “Is A Bold Move -- And The Right One.” [Editorial, Charlotte Observer, 8/21/11]The Obama Administration Has Devoted Unprecedented Resources To Border SecurityTHE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION HAS DEVOTED UNPRECEDENTED RESOURCES TO BORDER SECURITY, AND THE SOUTHWEST BORDER IS SAFER AND MORE SECURE THAN IT HAS BEEN IN YEARS THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION HAS DEVOTED UNPRECEDENTED RESOURCES TO BORDER SECURITYUnder President Obama’s Southwest Border Initiative The Obama Administration Deployed Unprecedented Resources To Border Security, Nearly Doubling The Number Of Border Patrol Agents On The Southwest Border From Roughly 10,000 In 2004 To Over 20,700 In 2011. “Under the Southwest Border Initiative the Obama Administration has deployed unprecedented amount of personnel, technology, and resources along the Southwest border - nearly doubling the number of Border Patrol agents from approximately 10,000 in 2004 to over 20,700 today, screening of 100% of southbound rail shipments, and for the first time providing critical surveillance capabilities to personnel on the ground through unmanned aerial systems that cover the Southwest border from California to Texas.” [U.S. Department of Homeland Security Press Release, 7/7/11]President Obama Has Hired 1,300 New Border Patrol Agents Since 2009.? “Mr. Obama deployed 1,200 guard troops to the border in June 2010 in an effort to bolster the U.S. Border Patrol … The troops were meant to be a bridge to beef up support staffing while the Border Patrol hired more agents under a bill Congress passed early in his term. … A Homeland Security Department official said they have made progress in hiring and training new agents. There were supposed to be nearly 21,500 agents in the Border Patrol as of Oct. 1, which represents an increase of 1,300 since Mr. Obama took control of the budgeting process in 2009.” [Washington Times, 12/13/11]August 2010: President Obama Signed The Southwest Border Security Bill Into Law, Providing Funding For Enhanced Border Protection To Respond To Increased Violence In Mexico. “President Obama signed the Southwest Border Security Bill on August 13, 2010, in response to immediate threats associated with a substantial increase in violence in Mexico, which resulted from pressure placed on the cartels by Mexican authorities and inter-cartel violence. This included $600 million in supplemental funds for enhanced border protection and law enforcement activities.” [White House Office Of National Drug Control Policy, 2011 National Counter-Narcotics Southwest Border Security Strategy, pg.1, 7/7/11]The Department Of Homeland Security Has Completed 649 Miles Of Border Fencing Out Of 652 Miles Planned. “DHS has also completed 649 miles of fencing out of nearly 652 miles planned, including 299 miles of vehicle barriers and 350 miles of pedestrian fence, with the remaining 3 miles scheduled to be completed.” [White House Immigration Blueprint, 5/11]AS A RESULT OF PRESIDENT OBAMA’S INVESTMENTS, THE SOUTHWEST BORDER IS “MORE SECURE THAN IT HAS BEEN IN YEARSWashington Post Editorial: “The Border Today Is More Secure Than It Has Been In Years, According To Virtually Every Yardstick Accepted By Republican And Democratic Administrations For Decades.” “If a majority of the GOP aspirants agreed on anything, it was that nothing meaningful can be done about the nation’s dysfunctional immigration system and the presence of 11 million undocumented immigrants until the southern border is ‘secure.’ And as Texas Gov. Rick Perry asserted, ‘It is not safe on that border.’ That sounds very grave. There’s just one problem: The border today is more secure than it has been in years, according to virtually every yardstick accepted by Republican and Democratic administrations for decades. Illegal crossings, as measured by Border Patrol apprehensions, are at their lowest level in 40 years, and rates of nearly all measurable crimes are plummeting in border communities.” [Editorial, Washington Post, 9/8/11]Analyzing A Decade Of Crime Data, USAToday Found That The Rate Of Violent Crime Along The U.S.-Mexico Border Is Falling And Border Cities Are On Average Safer Than Other Cities In Their States. “[A USA TODAY Analysis] found that rates of violent crime along the U.S.-Mexico border have been falling for years — even before the U.S. security buildup that has included thousands of law enforcement officers and expansion of a massive fence along the border. U.S. border cities were statistically safer on average than other cities in their states. Those border cities, big and small, have maintained lower crime rates than the national average, which itself has been falling.” [USA Today, 7/18/11]Arizona Daily Star: The Decline In Border Arrests To Levels Not Seen Since The Early 1970s Suggests Illegal Immigration Has Fallen Substantially. “Arrests of illegal immigrants trying to cross the U.S.-Mexico border have fallen to levels not seen since the early 1970s. With one month left in fiscal year 2011, the Border Patrol has apprehended nearly 305,000 illegal border crossers across the Southwest border. That puts the final year total on pace to be the lowest since 1972, when 321,000 apprehensions were made. By comparison, the agency made 852,500 to 1.6 million apprehensions each year from 1983 to 2007 along the Southwest border before the sharp downturn in the last four years. The precipitous decline is the latest measure to suggest illegal immigration, especially from Mexico, has fallen substantially.” [Arizona Daily Star, 9/4/11]Deferred Action Is Well Within The Obama Administration’s AuthorityTHIS ENFORCEMENT DECISION IS WELL WITHIN SECRETARY NAPOLITANO’S DISCRETION AND IS A TEMPORARY MEASUREIMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT DECISIONS ARE WELL WITHIN SECRETARY NAPOLITANO’S DISCRETIONDepartment Of Homeland Security Secretary Napolitano: While Only Congress Can Create A Pathway To Citizenship, The Executive Branch May “Set Forth Policy For The Exercise Of Discretion.” In a Department of Homeland Security memo, Secretary Janet Napolitano wrote, “This memorandum confers no substantive right, immigration status or pathway to citizenship.? Only the Congress, acting through its legislative authority, can confer these rights.? It remains for the executive branch, however, to set forth policy for the exercise of discretion within the framework of the existing law.? I have done so here.” [U.S. Department of Homeland Security Memo, 6/15/12]Napolitano Memo: “Prosecutorial Discretion, Which Is Used In So Many Other Areas, Is Especially Justified Here.” “Indeed, many of these young people have already contributed to our country in significant ways.? Prosecutorial discretion, which is used in so many other areas, is especially justified here.” [U.S. Department of Homeland Security Memo 6/15/12]DHS Secretary Napolitano: “These Young People Are Really Not The Individuals That The Immigration Removal Process Was Designed To Focus Upon.” In an interview with Wolf Blizter, Secretary Napolitano said, “But as someone who is charged with enforcing the immigration system, we’re setting good, strong, sensible priorities and again, these young people really are not the individuals that the immigration removal process was designed to focus upon.” [CNN, 6/15/12]THE IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT DECISION IS A TEMPORARY MEASUREPresident Obama: “Precisely Because This Is Temporary, Congress Needs To Act.” “Now, let's be clear -- this is not amnesty, this is not immunity.? This is not a path to citizenship.? It's not a permanent fix.? This is a temporary stopgap measure that lets us focus our resources wisely while giving a degree of relief and hope to talented, driven, patriotic young people… Precisely because this is temporary, Congress needs to act.? There is still time for Congress to pass the DREAM Act this year, because these kids deserve to plan their lives in more than two-year increments.”?[Remarks by the President, 6/15/12]President Obama Has Worked To Pass Comprehensive Immigration ReformSINCE TAKING OFFICE, PRESIDENT OBAMA WORKED TO BUILD A CONSENSUS TO PASS COMPREHENSIVE IMMIGRATION REFORMFrom The Beginning Of His Term, President Obama Pledged To Launch A Legislative Debate On Immigration Reform With The Final Policy Proposal Developed After “Close Consultation.” “‘He didn't make a commitment to sign it before the end of the year,’ a senior administration official involved in the discussions said. ‘Presumably, if you're launching the legislative debate in the fall, that'd be a pretty tall order. His commitment is to get this started.’? The official, who asked not to be named, said Obama proposed a process similar to that used on health care. He suggested ‘some kind of public event followed by a lot of conversations with stakeholders on the issue to get the policy right and the strategy right,’ the aide said. The White House plans ‘close consultations’ with the Hill on legislation but does not intend to offer up an Obama-branded proposal, the official said.” [Politico, 4/3/09]June 2009: President Obama Met With About 30 Lawmakers Of Both Parties To Begin A Push For Comprehensive Immigration Reform.“President Barack Obama began a push for comprehensive immigration reform Thursday, meeting with members of Congress to seek bipartisan help in reaching an accord on the politically explosive issue. Although he did not set a deadline for passing legislation, Obama said he and the group of about 30 lawmakers who gathered at the White House ‘want to actively get something done and not put it off until a year, two years, three years, five years from now.’” [Arizona Republic, 6/26/09]March 2010: President Obama And Administration Officials Spurred Senators Schumer And Graham To Produce A Blueprint For Immigration Reform That Could Be Turned Into Legislative Language That Year.? “Despite steep odds, the White House has discussed prospects for reviving a major overhaul of the nation's immigration laws, a commitment that President Obama has postponed once already. Obama took up the issue privately with his staff Monday in a bid to advance a bill through Congress before lawmakers become too distracted by approaching midterm elections. In the session, Obama and members of his Domestic Policy Council outlined ways to resuscitate the effort in a White House meeting with two senators -- Democrat Charles E. Schumer of New York and Republican Lindsey Graham of South Carolina -- who have spent months trying to craft a bill.? According to a person familiar with the meeting, the White House may ask Schumer and Graham to at least produce a blueprint that could be turned into legislative language.” [Los Angeles Times, 3/5/10]Once The Bipartisan Schumer-Graham Immigration Reform Framework Was Released, President Obama Immediately Praised It.? “Days before a march in Washington, D.C., two U.S. senators announced their framework Thursday for a bipartisan immigration bill that would increase resources for border enforcement, create a biometric Social Security card to prevent forgeries and legalize millions of illegal immigrants.? Sens.Charles Schumer, D-N.Y.,and Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., laid out their proposal in The Washington Post, saying ‘the American people deserve more than empty rhetoric and impractical calls for mass deportation.’ The announcement was immediately praised by President Barack Obama. The senators' plan ‘thoughtfully addresses the need to shore up our borders,’ Obama said in a statement, ‘and demands accountability from both workers who are here illegally and employers who game the system.’” [Orlando Sentinel, 3/19/10]BY 2009, EVEN REPUBLICANS WHO HAD PREVIOUSLY SUPPORTED IMMIGRATION REFORM OPPOSED REFORM, INSTEAD EMBRACING POLICIES THAT PROSECUTE UNDOCUMENTED IMMIGRANTSWashington Post Editorial: Virtually Every Republican, Including Some Who Supported Immigration Reform In 2007, Opposed Any Real Immigration Overhaul By 2009.? “But [A 2009 effort by President Obama to pass immigration reform] almost surely would have been a losing battle, since virtually every Republican — including some who supported reform in 2007 — opposed by 2009 any real overhaul, meaning one that would put undocumented immigrants on a path to citizenship.” [Editorial, Washington Post, 4/9/12]On May 25th, 2006, Senator Obama Joined 23 Republican Senators In A Successful Effort To Pass A Comprehensive Immigration Reform Measure In The Upper Chamber. On May 25th, 2006, the U.S. Senate passed S. 2611, the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2006. Twenty three Republican senators, including Senators McCain, Brownback, Graham, Lugar, McConnell, Murkowski, Snowe, and Collins voted for passage, as did Senator Obama. [U.S. Senate, Roll Call Vote #157 (109th Cong.), S. 2611, Y: 62 (D:38; R:23; I-1), N: 36 (D:3; R:33), NV:2 (D:2), 5/25/06]Philadelphia Inquirer Editorial: “With The Tea-Party Movement Leaning Away From Immigration Reform, Conservative Republicans Felt It Was Best To Lean That Way, Too.” “Republicans and Democrats have pushed for new immigration rules for more than a decade. Congress has come close. In fact, legislation passed the House last year and a majority supported it in the Senate, but not enough to make it filibuster-proof. The bill's foes seemed more concerned with election politics than what is in the country's best interest. With the tea-party movement leaning away from immigration reform, conservative Republicans felt it was best to lean that way, too. But Obama says he's ready for opponents this time. … It makes sense not to hold children responsible for the sins of their parents. But the foes of immigration reform are marshalling their forces against the DREAM Act. This will be the first battle in what promises to be a wearying campaign. Obama must press on.” [Editorial, Philadelphia Inquirer, 5/16/2011]EVEN DURING THE 2009-2010 PERIOD OF DEMOCRATIC MAJORITIES IN CONGRESS, REPUBLICANS FILIBUSTERED TO BLOCK EFFORTS AT PASSING IMMIGRATION REFORM, INCLUDING THE DREAM ACTApril 2010: Republicans Said That They Would Work Together To Block Democratic Efforts To Pass Immigration Reform. “Two Republican U.S. senators said Sunday they'll join other GOP lawmakers to block Democrats' efforts to push ahead with immigration reform…. The push for immigration reform by the White House and congressional Democrats comes amid widespread protests and threatened legal challenges over the nation's toughest law targeting illegal immigrants, signed Friday by Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer. Sen. Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga., said on CNN's "State of the Union" other issues pending in Congress must take precedence over immigration reform.” [UPI, 4/25/10]UPI Headline: “GOP Pledges To Block Immigration Bill Push.” [UPI, 4/25/10]"The Effect of All 41 Republicans Opposing Any Bill In The Senate Would Be A De-Facto Filibuster Of Any Immigration Bill." [The Hill, 4/20/10]In 2010, Senate Republicans Filibustered Efforts To Pass Immigration Legislation.? “Congressional Democrats’ last-ditch, pre-election effort to pass gay rights and immigration legislation fell victim to a Republican-led filibuster Tuesday, dealing a setback to those trying to lift the ban on openly gay troops serving in the U.S. military. The filibuster also ended Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s hopes of attaching an amendment legalizing illegal immigrant children to the defense bill. Immigrant- and gay-rights groups blasted the GOP move, and Democrats said they might try again later this year. In the meantime, they tried to get the maximum mileage politically out of Tuesday’s filibuster, with one Democratic leader accusing Republicans of ‘cowering’ behind procedural rules.” [Washington Times, 9/21/10]The DREAM Act Failed To Advance In The Democratic-Majority U.S. Senate In 2010, Falling “Victim To A GOP Filibuster,”? “A last-ditch Democratic effort to establish a path to citizenship for some children of illegal immigrants failed in the Senate on Saturday, likely derailing any attempt at sweeping immigration reform in Congress for the foreseeable future. The bill, known as the Dream Act, had passed the House, and its advocates and Democratic sponsors hoped that they could muster enough Republican votes to bring the legislation to the floor. Instead, it fell victim to a GOP filibuster, one in which a handful of Democrats also blocked the bill. The final tally was 55 to 41.” [Los Angeles Times, 12/19/2010]Newark Star-Ledger Editorial: Republican Senators John McCain And Lindsay Graham Once Joined Democrats In Sponsoring “Humane And Pragmatic” Proposals For Immigration Reform, But The Tea Party Put An End To That. ?“It's unfortunate that a calm discussion of immigration reform has been drowned out by calls for arrests, deportations and sealed borders. Republican Sens. John McCain (Arizona) and Lindsay Graham (South Carolina) once joined Democratic senators such as Charles Schumer (New York) and the late Edward Kennedy (Massachusetts) in sponsoring humane and pragmatic proposals, embracing enhanced border security, employee verification and a path to citizenship. The rise of tea party Republicanism over the past year put an end to that, at least for now.” [Editorial: Newark Star-Ledger, 11/23/10]Pushback: Comprehensive Immigration Reform Used To Be A Bipartisan IssueCOMPREHENSIVE IMMIGRATION REFORM USED TO BE A BIPARTISAN ISSUESIX YEARS AGO, SENATORS JOHN MCCAIN AND TED KENNEDY CAME TOGETHER WITH PRESIDENT BUSH TO CHAMPION COMPREHENSIVE REFORMIn 2006, Senator John McCain And Senator Edward Kennedy Worked Together To Achieve Senate Passage Of A Comprehensive Immigration Reform Bill, With Backing From President Bush. “The Senate yesterday approved legislation that would trigger the biggest changes to U.S. immigration policy in decades, by strengthening border security, establishing a guest-worker program, and providing the means for millions of illegal immigrants to stay in the country and possibly become citizens. … Democrats and Republicans alike said a House-Senate accord will be nearly impossible without the vigorous involvement of President Bush, who favors an approach similar to the Senate's. …? Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), Kennedy's partner in the effort, said more than 11 million illegal immigrants ‘harvest our crops, tend our gardens, work in our restaurants and clean our houses’ and added: ‘Some Americans believe we must find all these millions, round them up and send them back to the countries they came from. I don't know how you do that. And I don't know why you would want to.’” [Washington Post, 5/26/06]A Comprehensive Immigration Reform Bill Promoted By Senators McCain And Kennedy Failed In 2007, Despite Support From President George W. Bush.? “The collapse of comprehensive immigration revision in the Senate last night represents a political defeat for President Bush, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.), the bill's most prominent sponsors. More significantly, it represents a scathing indictment of the political culture of Washington. The defeat of the legislation can be laid at the doorstep of opponents on the right and left, on congressional leaders who couldn't move their troops and on an increasingly weakened president and his White House team. But together it added up to another example of a polarized political system in which the center could not hold.” [Washington Post, 6/8/07]AS SENATOR, PRESIDENT OBAMA JOINED 23 REPUBLICANS TO SUPPORT COMPREHENSIVE IMMIGRATION REFORMOn May 25th, 2006, Senator Obama Joined 23 Republican Senators In A Successful Effort To Pass A Comprehensive Immigration Reform Measure In The Upper Chamber.? On May 25th, 2006, the U.S. Senate passed S. 2611, the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2006.? Twenty three Republican senators, including Senators McCain, Brownback, Graham, Lugar, McConnell, Murkowski, Snowe, and Collins voted for passage, as did Senator Obama.? [U.S. Senate, Roll Call Vote #157 (109th Cong.), S. 2611, Y: 62 (D:38; R:23; I-1), N: 36 (D:3; R:33), NV:2 (D:2), 5/25/06]CONTRASTPresident Obama Supports The DREAM ACT, Which Romney Has Promised To VetoPresident Obama Supports The DREAM Act, STALLED IN CONGRESS, To Offer A Path To Legal Status For Young People Brought To The U.S. Through No Fault Of Their OwnPresident Obama Said That?If A Law Is Passed To Stop Expelling Young People From This Country, “I Will Sign It Right Away.” “But if election-year politics keeps Congress from acting on a comprehensive plan, let’s at least agree to stop expelling responsible young people who want to staff our labs, start new businesses, defend this country.? Send me a law that gives them the chance to earn their citizenship.? I will sign it right away.”?[Remarks by the President In State of the Union Address, 1/24/12]Charlotte Observer Editorial: “Republicans In Congress [Are] Blocking The Sensible DREAM Act Legislation;” Obama’s Stand On This Issue Is “Long-Held And Publicly Stated.” “Congress' refusal to approve the Dream Act, an immigration bill that would create a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants brought to the U.S. as children, have angered Hispanic leaders. Obama's poll numbers among those voters has been dropping. Still, the change is consistent with Obama's long-held and publicly stated stand on this issue. With Republicans in Congress blocking the sensible Dream Act legislation, this change is a welcome step to achieve that goal.” [Editorial, Charlotte Observer, 8/21/11]The DREAM Act Failed To Advance In The U.S. Senate In 2010, Falling “Victim To A GOP Filibuster.” “A last-ditch Democratic effort to establish a path to citizenship for some children of illegal immigrants failed in the Senate on Saturday, likely derailing any attempt at sweeping immigration reform in Congress for the foreseeable future. The bill, known as the Dream Act, had passed the House, and its advocates and Democratic sponsors hoped that they could muster enough Republican votes to bring the legislation to the floor. Instead, it fell victim to a GOP filibuster, one in which a handful of Democrats also blocked the bill. The final tally was 55 to 41.” [Los Angeles Times, 12/19/10]WHEN CONGRESS FAILED TO ACT, THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION ANNOUNCED A POLICY CHANGE TO?LIFT THE SHADOW OF DEPORTATION FROM YOUNG PEOPLE BROUGHT TO THIS COUNTRY THROUGH NO FAULT OF THEIR OWN The Obama Administration’s Policy Would Temporarily Protect Undocumented Immigrants From Deportation If They Came To The U.S. Before They Turned 16 And Are Currently Younger Than 30.? “Under the administration plan, illegal immigrants will be immune from deportation if they were brought to the United States before they turned 16 and are younger than 30, have been in the country for at least five continuous years, have no criminal history, graduated from a U.S. high school or earned a GED, or served in the military.” [Associated Press, 6/15/12]Under The Obama Administration’s Policy, Young Undocumented Immigrants Would Be Allowed To Apply For A Two-Year, Renewable Work Permit. “They also can apply for a work permit that will be good for two years with no limits on how many times it can be renewed. The officials who described the plan spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss it in advance of the official announcement. The policy will not lead toward citizenship but will remove the threat of deportation and grant the ability to work legally, leaving eligible immigrants able to remain in the United States for extended periods.” [Associated Press, 6/15/12]THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION HAS ALREADY RECEIVED ABOUT 82,000 APPLICATIONS FOR DEFERRED ACTION FOR CHILDHOOD ARRIVALS9/14/12: The Obama Administration Had Received About 82,000 Applications For Deferred Action For Childhood Arrivals And Notified The First Recipients During That Week.? “Spokesman Peter Boogaard said that as of Friday, U.S. Immigration and Citizenship Services had received about 82,000 applications from illegal immigrants hoping to qualify for the administration's Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program. The first immigrants to win the reprieve were notified this week. They will be allowed to stay in the United States for up to two years and be given permission to work; applications can be renewed every two years. Boogaard said another 1,600 applications are awaiting final review. USCIS started accepting applications for the program on Aug. 15. The first approvals came well ahead of the department's own internal estimates that it could take four to six months for an application, including fingerprints and a background check, to be fully reviewed.” [Associated Press, 9/14/12]ROMNEY PROMISED HE WOULD VETO THE DREAM ACT AND CALLED IT “FAVORITISM” AND A “HANDOUT” When Asked If He Would Veto The DREAM Act, Romney Said, “The Answer Is Yes.” “‘The question is if I were elected and Congress were to pass the Dream Act, would I veto it and the answer is yes,’ Romney said.” [Reuters, 12/31/11; Le Mars, IA Meet & Greet, 12/31/11]Romney Said He Would Veto The DREAM Act Because “Those Who Come Here Illegally Should Not Be Given Favoritism” And Instead Should “Return Home, Apply, And Get In Line With Everyone Else.” Romney: “Now with regards to immigration policy, I absolutely believe that those who come here illegally should not be given favoritism or a special route to becoming permanent residents or citizens that's not given to those people who have stayed in line legally. I just think we have to follow the law, I think that's the right course. … I have indicated I would veto the DREAM Act if provisions included in that act to say that people who are here illegally, if they go to school here long enough, get a degree here that they can become permanent residents. I think that's a mistake. I think we have to follow the law and insist those who come here illegally, ultimately return home, apply, and get in line with everyone else.” [Fox News/Wall Street Journal SC Debate, 1/16/12]When Asked About His Opposition To The DREAM Act, Romney Said That If “Hispanic-American” Voters Want “A President Who Is Going To Talk To Them About A Handout Or More Benefits For Free, They Got That Guy.” Romney: “You know, the Hispanic-American voters I speak with are overwhelmingly concerned with opportunity. They want good jobs in America and rising incomes. If they want a president who is going to talk to them about a handout or more benefits for free, they got that guy.” [Starting Point, CNN, 1/4/12]Deferred ActionWHEN CONGRESS FAILED TO ACT, THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION ANNOUNCED A POLICY CHANGE TO?LIFT THE SHADOW OF DEPORTATION FROM YOUNG PEOPLE BROUGHT TO THIS COUNTRY THROUGH NO FAULT OF THEIR OWN The Obama Administration’s Policy Would Temporarily Protect Undocumented Immigrants From Deportation If They Came To The U.S. Before They Turned 16 And Are Currently Younger Than 30.? “Under the administration plan, illegal immigrants will be immune from deportation if they were brought to the United States before they turned 16 and are younger than 30, have been in the country for at least five continuous years, have no criminal history, graduated from a U.S. high school or earned a GED, or served in the military.” [Associated Press, 6/15/12]9/14/12: The Obama Administration Had Received About 82,000 Applications For Deferred Action For Childhood Arrivals And Notified The First Recipients During That Week.? “Spokesman Peter Boogaard said that as of Friday, U.S. Immigration and Citizenship Services had received about 82,000 applications from illegal immigrants hoping to qualify for the administration's Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program. The first immigrants to win the reprieve were notified this week. They will be allowed to stay in the United States for up to two years and be given permission to work; applications can be renewed every two years. Boogaard said another 1,600 applications are awaiting final review. USCIS started accepting applications for the program on Aug. 15. The first approvals came well ahead of the department's own internal estimates that it could take four to six months for an application, including fingerprints and a background check, to be fully reviewed.” [Associated Press, 9/14/12]ROMNEY CLARIFIED THAT HE WOULD NOT GRANT YOUNG PEOPLE – BROUGHT TO THIS COUNTRY THROUGH NO FAULT OF THEIR OWN – DEPORTATION EXEMPTIONS IF ELECTED, LEAVING THEM TO FACE DEPORTATIONRomney Would Not Grant Undocumented Immigrants Deportation Exemptions Upon Taking Office. “Responding to a Globe request to clarify Romney’s statement to the Denver Post, Romney’s campaign said he would honor deportation exemptions issued by the Obama administration before his inauguration but would not grant new ones after taking office.” [Boston Globe, 10/2/12]Boston Globe: “Illegal Immigrants Who Did Not Receive Exemptions By Romney’s Inauguration Could Face Deportation.”? “Illegal immigrants who did not receive exemptions by Romney’s inauguration could face deportation, though Romney has said repeatedly that he has no plan to ‘round up’ undocumented immigrants for deportation.” [Boston Globe, 10/2/12]New York Times: “Romney Did Not Fill In New Details About The Reform Plan He Would Propose, Or Say How He Would Steer It Through Congress, Where There Is A Partisan Stalemate On The Issue.” [Caucus Blog, New York Times, 10/2/12]Romney Claims He Would Secure The Border Before Considering Comprehensive Immigration Reform, But Under President Obama, The Southwest Border Is Safer And More Secure Than It Has Been In YearsROMNEY: BUILD A FENCE AND SECURE THE BORDERBEFORE CONSIDERING COMPREHENSIVE REFORMRomney’s Immigration Plans: “I’d Build A Fence, I’d Have Enough Border Patrol Agents To Secure It.” [Romney small business town hall, Warwick, RI, 4/11/12]Romney’s Solution To Illegal Immigration: “My Goodness, Let’s Have A Fence And Let’s Patrol That Fence.” Questioner: “What are you going to do about all the illegals?” Romney: “Here’s the answer, in my opinion. One, one thing to do, as you mentioned, is make sure that you stop the flow of people coming in illegally into the country. One part of that is to build a fence. My goodness, let’s have a fence and let’s patrol the fence.” [Romney Town Hall, Milford NH, 10/10/11]Washington Post: “On Immigration, Romney’s Position Is To Secure The Border Before Considering Comprehensive Reform.” “On immigration, Romney’s position is to secure the border before considering comprehensive reform. At the town hall in Keene, he said that means to ‘turn off the magnet.’ ‘Employers in the U.S. who knowingly hire people who are here illegally — that’s the magnet,’ he said. ‘So we have to crack down on employers that hire illegals, make it easy for them to determine who’s here legally and who’s not, and then crack down on those who hire illegals.’” [Washington Post, 9/1/11]THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION HAS DEVOTED UNPRECEDENTED RESOURCES TO BORDER SECURITY, AND THE SOUTHWEST BORDER IS SAFER AND MORE SECURE THAN IT HAS BEEN IN YEARS THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION HAS DEVOTED UNPRECEDENTED RESOURCES TO BORDER SECURITYUnder President Obama’s Southwest Border Initiative The Obama Administration Deployed Unprecedented Resources To Border Security, Nearly Doubling The Number Of Border Patrol Agents On The Southwest Border From Roughly 10,000 In 2004 To Over 20,700 In 2011. “Under the Southwest Border Initiative the Obama Administration has deployed unprecedented amount of personnel, technology, and resources along the Southwest border - nearly doubling the number of Border Patrol agents from approximately 10,000 in 2004 to over 20,700 today, screening of 100% of southbound rail shipments, and for the first time providing critical surveillance capabilities to personnel on the ground through unmanned aerial systems that cover the Southwest border from California to Texas.” [U.S. Department of Homeland Security Press Release, 7/7/11]President Obama Has Hired 1,300 New Border Patrol Agents Since 2009.? “Mr. Obama deployed 1,200 guard troops to the border in June 2010 in an effort to bolster the U.S. Border Patrol … The troops were meant to be a bridge to beef up support staffing while the Border Patrol hired more agents under a bill Congress passed early in his term. … A Homeland Security Department official said they have made progress in hiring and training new agents. There were supposed to be nearly 21,500 agents in the Border Patrol as of Oct. 1, which represents an increase of 1,300 since Mr. Obama took control of the budgeting process in 2009.” [Washington Times, 12/13/11]August 2010: President Obama Signed The Southwest Border Security Bill Into Law, Providing Funding For Enhanced Border Protection To Respond To Increased Violence In Mexico. “President Obama signed the Southwest Border Security Bill on August 13, 2010, in response to immediate threats associated with a substantial increase in violence in Mexico, which resulted from pressure placed on the cartels by Mexican authorities and inter-cartel violence. This included $600 million in supplemental funds for enhanced border protection and law enforcement activities.” [White House Office Of National Drug Control Policy, 2011 National Counter-Narcotics Southwest Border Security Strategy, pg.1, 7/7/11]The Department Of Homeland Security Has Completed 649 Miles Of Border Fencing Out Of 652 Miles Planned. “DHS has also completed 649 miles of fencing out of nearly 652 miles planned, including 299 miles of vehicle barriers and 350 miles of pedestrian fence, with the remaining 3 miles scheduled to be completed.” [White House Immigration Blueprint, 5/11]AS A RESULT OF PRESIDENT OBAMA’S INVESTMENTS, THE SOUTHWEST BORDER IS “MORE SECURE THAN IT HAS BEEN IN YEARSWashington Post Editorial: “The Border Today Is More Secure Than It Has Been In Years, According To Virtually Every Yardstick Accepted By Republican And Democratic Administrations For Decades.” “If a majority of the GOP aspirants agreed on anything, it was that nothing meaningful can be done about the nation’s dysfunctional immigration system and the presence of 11 million undocumented immigrants until the southern border is ‘secure.’ And as Texas Gov. Rick Perry asserted, ‘It is not safe on that border.’ That sounds very grave. There’s just one problem: The border today is more secure than it has been in years, according to virtually every yardstick accepted by Republican and Democratic administrations for decades. Illegal crossings, as measured by Border Patrol apprehensions, are at their lowest level in 40 years, and rates of nearly all measurable crimes are plummeting in border communities.” [Editorial, Washington Post, 9/8/11]Analyzing A Decade Of Crime Data, USAToday Found That The Rate Of Violent Crime Along The U.S.-Mexico Border Is Falling And Border Cities Are On Average Safer Than Other Cities In Their States. “[A USA TODAY Analysis] found that rates of violent crime along the U.S.-Mexico border have been falling for years — even before the U.S. security buildup that has included thousands of law enforcement officers and expansion of a massive fence along the border. U.S. border cities were statistically safer on average than other cities in their states. Those border cities, big and small, have maintained lower crime rates than the national average, which itself has been falling.” [USA Today, 7/18/11]Arizona Daily Star: The Decline In Border Arrests To Levels Not Seen Since The Early 1970s Suggests Illegal Immigration Has Fallen Substantially. “Arrests of illegal immigrants trying to cross the U.S.-Mexico border have fallen to levels not seen since the early 1970s. With one month left in fiscal year 2011, the Border Patrol has apprehended nearly 305,000 illegal border crossers across the Southwest border. That puts the final year total on pace to be the lowest since 1972, when 321,000 apprehensions were made. By comparison, the agency made 852,500 to 1.6 million apprehensions each year from 1983 to 2007 along the Southwest border before the sharp downturn in the last four years. The precipitous decline is the latest measure to suggest illegal immigration, especially from Mexico, has fallen substantially.” [Arizona Daily Star, 9/4/11]President Obama Supports Comprehensive Immigration Reform, Romney’s Only Plan Is To Have Undocumented Immigrants Self-DeportPRESIDENT OBAMA HAS AFFIRMED HIS COMMITMENT TO ACHIEVING COMPREHENSIVE IMMIGRATION REFORMIn His 2012 State Of The Union Address, President Obama Said: “We Should Be Working on Comprehensive Immigration Reform Right Now.” “I believe as strongly as ever that we should take on illegal immigration.? That’s why my administration has put more boots on the border than ever before.? That’s why there are fewer illegal crossings than when I took office.? The opponents of action are out of excuses.? We should be working on comprehensive immigration reform right now.”? [White House, Remarks by the President In State of the Union Address, 1/24/12]PRESIDENT OBAMA WORKED TO BUILD A CONSENSUS TOWARDS ENACTING COMPREHENSIVE IMMIGRATION REFORMIn 2009, Expressing A Desire To “Actively Get Something Done” Around Comprehensive Immigration Reform, And “Not Put It Off.” President Obama Met With Lawmakers Of Both Parties To Work Towards An Agreement. “President Barack Obama began a push for comprehensive immigration reform Thursday, meeting with members of Congress to seek bipartisan help in reaching an accord on the politically explosive issue. Although he did not set a deadline for passing legislation, Obama said he and the group of about 30 lawmakers who gathered at the White House ‘want to actively get something done and not put it off until a year, two years, three years, five years from now.’” [Arizona Republic, 6/26/09]In August 2009, President Obama And Secretary Napolitano Held A White House Meeting To Discuss Immigration Policy With More Than 100 Representatives From Groups Supporting Immigration Reform. “At the White House meeting Thursday, both Obama and Napolitano reaffirmed their support for immigration reform to more than 100 representatives from labor, business, law enforcement, religious organizations and immigrant rights groups. The assembly broke into smaller groups to share ideas about how to address the main pieces of a comprehensive reform package: enforcement, guest workers, family visas and legalization of the nation's estimated 11 million illegal immigrants. In a teleconference call Friday, several attendants expressed satisfaction with the meeting as a good step forward.” [Los Angeles Times, 8/22/09]President Obama And Administration Officials Spurred Senators Schumer And Graham Towards Introducing A Comprehensive Immigration Reform Bill, Pushing For A Blueprint In Early 2010.? “Despite steep odds, the White House has discussed prospects for reviving a major overhaul of the nation's immigration laws, a commitment that President Obama has postponed once already. Obama took up the issue privately with his staff Monday in a bid to advance a bill through Congress before lawmakers become too distracted by approaching midterm elections. In the session, Obama and members of his Domestic Policy Council outlined ways to resuscitate the effort in a White House meeting with two senators -- Democrat Charles E. Schumer of New York and Republican Lindsey Graham of South Carolina -- who have spent months trying to craft a bill.? According to a person familiar with the meeting, the White House may ask Schumer and Graham to at least produce a blueprint that could be turned into legislative language.” [Los Angeles Times, 3/5/10]ROMNEY’S IMMIGRATION PLAN: “SELF-DEPORTATION”Romney On Illegal Immigration: “The Answer Is Self-Deportation, Which Is People Decide They Can Do Better By Going Home Because They Can’t Find Work Here.” [NBC Florida Debate, 1/23/12]??Romney Advisor Eric Fehrnstrom On Romney’s Immigration Plan: “Cut Off Their Employment, If They Can’t Get Work, If They Can’t Get Benefits Like In State Tuition, They Will Leave”… “Shut Off Access To The Job Market, And They Will Self Retreat. They Will Go To Their Native Countries.” ?“Finally, after I asked the question for a seventh time, Fehrnstrom responded by emphasizing employer enforcement as a way to get illegal immigrants to leave through attrition. ‘Well, if you cut off their employment, if they can’t get work, if they can’t get benefits like in state tuition, they will leave,’ he said. I asked if that would take care of all of the illegal immigrants, and he said, ‘Enough of them would leave that it wouldn’t be as big of a problem as it is today.’ Just to be clear, I wanted to know about those that still could remain under such a scenario. ‘I just answered your question Phil, and you keep hectoring me about it,’ he snapped. ‘You turn off the magnets, no in state tuition, no benefits of any kind, no employment. You put in place an employment verification system with penalties for employers that hire illegals, that will shut off access to the job market, and they will self retreat. They will go to their native countries.’” [Washington Examiner, 11/22/11]New York Times Editorial: Romney Lifted His Self-Deportation Scheme From Kris Kobach “The Mastermind Of A Host Of Crackdowns That Seek To Leave Unauthorized Immigrants Not Just Unable To Work, But Unable To Drive, Rent Or Heat A Home, Afraid To Take Children To School Or The Doctor.” The New York Times editorial board wrote of Romney’s support of self-deportation policies: “Mr. Romney lifted this scheme from a campaign adviser, Kris Kobach, the mastermind of a host of crackdowns that seek to leave unauthorized immigrants not just unable to work, but unable to drive, rent or heat a home, afraid to take children to school or the doctor.” [Editorial, New York Times, 2/20/12]New York Times Editorial: Romney’s Scheme For Fixing Immigration Is “Self-Deportation” – Mass Expulsion Through Making The Lives Of Immigrants “Unbearable.” “Mitt Romney has moved farthest to the fringe. His scheme for fixing immigration is mass expulsion: a fantasy of ridding the country of 11 million unauthorized immigrants by making their lives unbearable. The key to his harsh vision is ‘self-deportation,’ the deceptively bland-sounding policy that he introduced at a debate. It accepts that arresting and expelling so many millions would be impossible — like deporting the State of Ohio. But it replaces that delusion with another: That people can be made miserable enough to leave on their own.” [Editorial, New York Times, 2/20/12]New York Times Editorial: “In States Where ‘Self-Deportation’ Is Official Policy, The Results Have Been Deplorable” And “Have Caused A Civil-Rights Emergency.” “In states where ‘self-deportation’ is official policy, the results have been deplorable. In Arizona, Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Maricopa County sweeps neighborhoods making mass arrests, and people are afraid to leave home. In Alabama, farm and construction workers have fled by the thousands; tornado victims are afraid to go to a shelter. These laws hijack the federal government’s responsibility for immigration and have caused a civil-rights emergency. But Mr. Romney’s response has been to condemn the Obama Justice Department for fighting them in court.” [Editorial, New York Times, 2/20/12]ATTACKRomney Is The Most Extreme Nominee On ImmigrationROMNEY’S IMMIGRATION POLICIES ARE EXTREMERomney Is Furthest To The Right Of The Republican Field On Immigration. “But Perry’s first major stumble in the primary race occurred when Romney attacked him from the right on the question of immigration: A generic ‘ideology score’ can’t capture the fact that, for millions of voters (especially Hispanics) who see immigration as a make-or-break issue, it is Romney, not Perry, who is furthest to the right.” [Bloomberg, 11/14/11]Romney Took A “Far-Right” Position On Immigration When He Supported “Self-Deportation” And Called Arizona’s Hard-Line Law, A “Model.” “Unfortunately for Romney, the general election won't present him with a clean slate, and Democrats plan on keeping that slate full of all the far-right positions that the presumptive nominee has taken in a primary populated by conservatives. There are more than enough comments, particularly on immigration and women's issues, to keep the Obama campaign busy this fall. For example: On immigration, Romney has called Arizona's hard-line law a ‘model’ and has said that ‘the answer is self-deportation.’” [ABC News, 4/6/12]Washington Post: “Republicans Are Increasingly Worried” That Mitt Romney’s “Heated Rhetoric On Illegal Immigration” May Undermine The Party’s Efforts To “Win A Competitive Slice Of The Fast-Growing Hispanic Vote.” “Republicans are increasingly worried that their party’s efforts to win a competitive slice of the fast-growing Hispanic vote in important presidential battleground states are being undermined by Mitt Romney’s heated rhetoric on illegal immigration. Several leading GOP strategists say Romney’s sharp-tongued attacks have gained wide attention in Hispanic media and are eroding the party’s already fragile standing in that community.” [Washington Post, 12/19/11]ROMNEY HAS SURROUNDED HIMSELF WITH ANTI-IMMIGRANT EXTREMISTSRomney Amassed A “Trifecta Of Hard-Liners On Illegal Immigration” With Endorsements From Arizona Governor Jan Brewer, Kansas Secretary Of State Kris Kobach And Former California Governor Pete Wilson. “With this weekend's endorsement by Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer, Mitt Romney has amassed the backing of what could be considered the trifecta of hard-liners on illegal immigration - and he will put that to the test with Hispanic voters Tuesday in Arizona's GOP primary. Mr. Romney also has the support of former California Gov. Pete Wilson and Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach, who together with Ms. Brewer have led state immigration crackdown efforts during the past two decades. Their backing solidifies the former Massachusetts governor's credentials as the toughest candidate on the issue.” [Washington Times, 2/28/12]Kansas Secretary Of State Kris Kobach: “I Have Advised Romney Directly, And His Team Around Him, That Attrition Through Enforcement Has Been Working, That Self-Deportation Has Been Observed In Arizona And Alabama, And That This Really Does Need To Be A Part Of Our National Effort.”? ? [The Guardian, 2/24/12]Russell Pearce, Author Of Arizona’s Controversial Immigration Law Said Romney’s Immigration Policy Is “Identical To Mine. Attrition By Enforcement.” “Mitt Romney’s tough stance on illegal immigration during the 2012 campaign has won him the support of an influential conservative voice on the issue -- Russell Pearce, the former Arizona state Senate president and author of the state’s controversial anti-illegal immigration law. In an interview Tuesday night after a tea party dinner in Gilbert, Ariz., Pearce – who, in part due to his authorship of the SB 1070 law, late last year became the first Arizona legislator to be ousted from office in a recall election – described the former Massachusetts governor’s stand on illegal immigration as the same as his own. ‘His immigration policy is identical to mine,’ Pearce said. ‘Attrition by enforcement. It’s identical to mine – enforce the laws. We have good laws, just enforce them.’” [Washington Post, 4/5/12]Romney Called On Iowans To Re-Elect Rep. Steve King Saying “This Man Needs To Be Your Congressman Again. I Want Him As My Partner In Washington D.C.” Romney: “And I’m looking here at Steve King. This man needs to be your congressman again. I want him as my partner in Washington D.C.” [Romney Rally, Orange City IA, 9/7/12]Rep. Steve King Compared Immigrants To Dogs.?“Rep. Steve King (R-IA) compared immigrants to dogs at a townhall meeting yesterday, telling constituents that the U.S. should pick only best immigrants the way one chooses the ‘pick of the litter.’? King told the crowd in Pocahontas, Iowa that he’s owned lots of birdogs over the years and advised, ‘You want a good birdog? You want one that’s going to aggressive? Pick the one that’s the friskiest … not the one that’s over there sleeping in the corner.’? King suggested lazy immigrants should be avoided as well. ‘You get the pick of the litter and you got yourself a pretty good birdog. Well, we’ve got the pick of every donor civilization on the planet,’ King said. ‘We’ve got the vigor from the planet to come to America.’”? [Salon, 5/22/12]Rep. Steve King Compared Undocumented Workers To Livestock Calling For A Boarder Fence That “We Could Also Electrify This Wire With The Kind Of Current That Would Not Kill Somebody, But It Would Simply Be A Discouragement For Them To Be Fooling Around With It. We Do That With Livestock All The Time.”IA Rep. Steve King: “So when I get down there and sit on that border, what I do is I come to this conclusion, we can’t shut that off unless we build a fence and a wall. I want to put the fence in, but I want to put a wall in, and I designed one… I also say we need to do a few other things on top of that wall, and one of them being to put a little bit of wire on top here to provide a disincentive for people to climb over the top or put a ladder there. We could also electrify this wire with the kind of current that would not kill somebody, but it would simply be a discouragement for them to be fooling around with it. We do that with livestock all the time.” [IA Rep. Steve King, U.S. House Of Representatives, 6/13/06]Romney Called The Arizona Law A Model For The NationROMNEY ENDORSED THE CONTROVERSIAL ARIZONA LAW THAT ALLOWS RANDOM DOCUMENT CHECKS AND DETAINMENT, AND EVEN CALLED IT A “MODEL” FOR ENFORCING IMMIGRATION LAWSRomney Called The Arizona Law “A Model” For How To Enforce Immigration Laws. In a Republican debate, Romney was asked, “Should there be aggressive, seek them out, find them and arrest them as the Sheriff Arpaio advocates?” Romney said, “You know, I think you see a model in Arizona. They passed a law here that says -- that says that people who come here and try and find work, that the employer is required to look them up on e- verify. This e-verify system allows employers in Arizona to know who's here legally and who's not here legally. And as a result of e-verify being put in place, the number of people in Arizona that are here illegally has dropped by some 14 percent, where the national average has only gone down 7 percent. So going back to the question that was asked, the right course for America is to drop these lawsuits against Arizona and other states that are trying to do the job Barack Obama isn't doing.” [CNN Arizona Debate, 2/22/12] LA Times Headline: “Romney Calls Arizona Immigration Law A Model For The Nation.” [LA Times, 2/22/12]LA Times: “Mitt Romney Called The Controversial Arizona Illegal Immigration Law A Model For The Country, And Blasted The Obama Administration For Challenging It In Court.” [LA Times, 2/22/12]Romney Called The Arizona Law A “Model” For The Rest Of The Country. “In February, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney called the Arizona law a ‘model’ for the rest of the country.” [The Hill, 4/24/12]ROMNEY SENIOR ADVISOR: ROMNEY BELIEVES IT IS OK TO STOP SOMEBODY AND ASK FOR THEIR PAPERSAsked If Romney Believed It Was OK To Stop Somebody In Arizona And Asked For Their Papers When There’s No Evidence Someone Was In The U.S. Illegally, Romney Senior Adviser Ed Gillespie Said, “The Arizona [Law] Is One That Governor Romney Supports.” WALLACE: “But [Romney] thinks it's OK to pick -- to stop somebody by the side of the road in Arizona and ask for their papers when there's no evidence they are illegal at all?” GILLESPIE: “The federal law as it is now, as I understand it, says that you have to be able to demonstrate your citizenship if stopped for violation. I believe -- I could be wrong. But regardless, the Arizona is one that Governor Romney supports. By the way, it enjoys the support of majority of Arizonans.” [Fox News Sunday, Fox News, 4/15/12]ROMNEY SAID HE WOULD DROP FEDERAL LAWSUITS AGAINST ARIZONA IF HE WERE PRESIDENT ALLOWING THE DETENTION AND HARASSMENT OF AUTHORIZED VISITORS, IMMIGRANTS AND CITIZENSRomney Said “On Day One” He Would Drop The Federal Lawsuits Against Arizona And Other States For Enacting S.B. 1070 And Similar Pieces Of Anti-Immigration Legislation. ROMNEY: “So going back to the question that was asked, the right course for America is to drop these lawsuits against Arizona and other states that are trying to do the job Barack Obama isn't doing. And I will drop those lawsuits on day one.” [CNN Arizona Debate, 2/22/12]ROMNEY CRITICIZED THE SUPREME COURT DECISION ON THE ARIZONA LAW SAYING STATES SHOULD BE GIVEN “MORE LATITUDE” AND “NOT LESS”Romney Criticized The Supreme Court Decision Regarding The Arizona Law Saying The Court Should Have Given “More Latitude To The States Not Less.” Romney said of the Supreme Court decision on the Arizona Law: “Now you probably heard today there was a Supreme Court decision relating to immigration and, you know, given the failure of the immigration policy in this country, I would have preferred to see the Supreme Court give more latitude to the states not less. And there are states now under this decision have less authority, less latitude, to enforce immigration laws.” [Romney Fundraiser, Scottsdale AZ, 6/25/12]ROMNEY IS ADVISED BY KANSAS SECRETARY OF STATE KRIS KOBACH WHO HELPED DRAFT THE ARIZONA LAW AND HAS SUGGESTED ROMNEY BRING IT TO THE NATIONAL LEVELRomney Informal Adviser Kris Kobach: Romney “Stated Very Publicly That Arizona's Law Should Be A Model For How The Federal Government Enforces Its Immigration Laws. And He's Correct There Too.” [CNN, 4/20/12]Kansas Secretary Of State Kris Kobach: Romney Was The Man To Implement Arizona’s Immigration Self-Deportation Strategy At The Federal Level.? “One of the leading men behind Romney's plan of attrition through enforcement is Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach. The former law professor who served in the Bush administration at the Justice Department under John Ashcroft is one of the key authors of the Arizona law and a similar measure in Alabama. Kobach, who has endorsed Romney and serves as an informal adviser to the candidate, said ‘the idea is not rocket science.’ ‘If you enforce the law more forcefully,’ Kobach told Hotsheet, ‘illegal aliens make the rational decision to return to their home country.’? Kobach wants the U.S. to take the same approach as Arizona and Alabama. ‘Arizona has become a model at what the U.S. should be doing at the federal level,’ Kobach said in a telephone interview, and he thinks Romney is the man to do it."? [CBS News, 2/28/12]Kansas Secretary Of State Kris Kobach, A Romney Adviser: “I Have Advised Romney Directly, And His Team Around Him, That Attrition Through Enforcement Has Been Working, That Self-Deportation Has Been Observed In Arizona And Alabama, And That This Really Does Need To Be A Part Of Our National Effort.”? [The Guardian, 2/24/12]Romney Endorser Kansas Secretary Of State Kris Kobach Said He Supported “Attrition Through Enforcement” Which Seeks To Drive Out Undocumented Immigrants By Making It “More Difficult” For Them To Live And Work In An Area. “In a telephone interview Monday from South Carolina, Mr. Kobach said he is guided by the ‘attrition through enforcement’ principle, which seeks to drive out illegal immigrants by making it ‘more difficult’ for them to live and work in an area.” [Wall Street Journal, 1/16/12]Romney Wants Undocumented Immigrants To Self-DeportROMNEY PROMISED TO IMPOSE THE INHUMANE IMMIGRATION POLICY OF “SELF-DEPORTATION”Romney On Illegal Immigration: “The Answer Is Self-Deportation, Which Is People Decide They Can Do Better By Going Home Because They Can’t Find Work Here.” [NBC Florida Debate, 1/23/12]??Romney Advisor Eric Fehrnstrom On Romney’s Immigration Plan: “Cut Off Their Employment, If They Can’t Get Work, If They Can’t Get Benefits Like In State Tuition, They Will Leave”… “Shut Off Access To The Job Market, And They Will Self Retreat. They Will Go To Their Native Countries.” ?“Finally, after I asked the question for a seventh time, Fehrnstrom responded by emphasizing employer enforcement as a way to get illegal immigrants to leave through attrition. ‘Well, if you cut off their employment, if they can’t get work, if they can’t get benefits like in state tuition, they will leave,’ he said. I asked if that would take care of all of the illegal immigrants, and he said, ‘Enough of them would leave that it wouldn’t be as big of a problem as it is today.’ Just to be clear, I wanted to know about those that still could remain under such a scenario. ‘I just answered your question Phil, and you keep hectoring me about it,’ he snapped. ‘You turn off the magnets, no in state tuition, no benefits of any kind, no employment. You put in place an employment verification system with penalties for employers that hire illegals, that will shut off access to the job market, and they will self retreat. They will go to their native countries.’” [Washington Examiner, 11/22/11]New York Times Editorial: Romney Lifted His Self-Deportation Scheme From Kris Kobach “The Mastermind Of A Host Of Crackdowns That Seek To Leave Unauthorized Immigrants Not Just Unable To Work, But Unable To Drive, Rent Or Heat A Home, Afraid To Take Children To School Or The Doctor.” The New York Times editorial board wrote of Romney’s support of self-deportation policies: “Mr. Romney lifted this scheme from a campaign adviser, Kris Kobach, the mastermind of a host of crackdowns that seek to leave unauthorized immigrants not just unable to work, but unable to drive, rent or heat a home, afraid to take children to school or the doctor.” [Editorial, New York Times, 2/20/12]New York Times Editorial: Romney’s Scheme For Fixing Immigration Is “Self-Deportation” – Mass Expulsion Through Making The Lives Of Immigrants “Unbearable.” “Mitt Romney has moved farthest to the fringe. His scheme for fixing immigration is mass expulsion: a fantasy of ridding the country of 11 million unauthorized immigrants by making their lives unbearable. The key to his harsh vision is ‘self-deportation,’ the deceptively bland-sounding policy that he introduced at a debate. It accepts that arresting and expelling so many millions would be impossible — like deporting the State of Ohio. But it replaces that delusion with another: That people can be made miserable enough to leave on their own.” [Editorial, New York Times, 2/20/12]New York Times Editorial: “In States Where ‘Self-Deportation’ Is Official Policy, The Results Have Been Deplorable” And “Have Caused A Civil-Rights Emergency.” “In states where ‘self-deportation’ is official policy, the results have been deplorable. In Arizona, Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Maricopa County sweeps neighborhoods making mass arrests, and people are afraid to leave home. In Alabama, farm and construction workers have fled by the thousands; tornado victims are afraid to go to a shelter. These laws hijack the federal government’s responsibility for immigration and have caused a civil-rights emergency. But Mr. Romney’s response has been to condemn the Obama Justice Department for fighting them in court.” [Editorial, New York Times, 2/20/12]Sen. John McCain, A Romney Endorser: “Self-Deportation” Is Not A Humane Way To Treat Undocumented Immigrants In The United States. RAMOS: “You’re talking about a humane way. Is self-deportation a humane way to treat 11 million undocumented immigrants?” McCAIN: “No. I think there are some people who want to leave this country and return to the country they came from, but obviously it requires a broader solution than that, and we all know that.”[Al Punto, Univision, 2/5/12]Romney Supporter Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart Called Romney’s Support For “Self-Deportation,” “A Bad Choice Of Words.” “One of Mitt Romney's top Cuban-American backers in Florida told Yahoo News that the former Massachusetts governor made a mistake when he said that ‘self-deportation’ was the solution to illegal immigration. ‘It was frankly a bad choice of words,’ Mario Diaz-Balart, a Republican representative from South Florida, said in an interview with Yahoo News.” [Yahoo News, 1/26/12]Susana Martinez Said Of Romney’s Immigration Plans: “‘Self-Deport?’ What The Heck Does That Mean? I Have No Doubt Hispanics Have Been Alienated During This Campaign.” “[Susana] Martinez seems to agree. As we sit down at a local Starbucks, I ask about immigration. It’s a topic she has been reluctant to discuss since winning the Republican primary in 2010, so what comes next is surprising: a battle plan that contradicts nearly everything the GOP has been doing and saying since 2007, Romney’s ‘self-deportation’ strategy included. ‘Self-deport?’ What the heck does that mean?’ Martinez snaps. ‘I have no doubt Hispanics have been alienated during this campaign. But now there’s an opportunity for Gov. Romney to have a sincere conversation about what we can do and why.’” [The Daily Beast, 05/14/12] Romney Would Veto The DREAM ActROMNEY PROMISED HE WOULD VETO THE DREAM ACT AND CALLED IT “FAVORITISM” AND A “HANDOUT” When Asked If He Would Veto The DREAM Act, Romney Said, “The Answer Is Yes.” “‘The question is if I were elected and Congress were to pass the Dream Act, would I veto it and the answer is yes,’ Romney said.” [Reuters, 12/31/11; Le Mars, IA Meet & Greet, 12/31/11]Romney Said He Would Veto The DREAM Act Because “Those Who Come Here Illegally Should Not Be Given Favoritism” And Instead Should “Return Home, Apply, And Get In Line With Everyone Else.” Romney: “Now with regards to immigration policy, I absolutely believe that those who come here illegally should not be given favoritism or a special route to becoming permanent residents or citizens that's not given to those people who have stayed in line legally. I just think we have to follow the law, I think that's the right course. … I have indicated I would veto the DREAM Act if provisions included in that act to say that people who are here illegally, if they go to school here long enough, get a degree here that they can become permanent residents. I think that's a mistake. I think we have to follow the law and insist those who come here illegally, ultimately return home, apply, and get in line with everyone else.” [Fox News/Wall Street Journal SC Debate, 1/16/12]When Asked About His Opposition To The DREAM Act, Romney Said That If “Hispanic-American” Voters Want “A President Who Is Going To Talk To Them About A Handout Or More Benefits For Free, They Got That Guy.” Romney: “You know, the Hispanic-American voters I speak with are overwhelmingly concerned with opportunity. They want good jobs in America and rising incomes. If they want a president who is going to talk to them about a handout or more benefits for free, they got that guy.” [Starting Point, CNN, 1/4/12]ROMNEY CLARIFIED THAT HE WOULD NOT GRANT YOUNG PEOPLE – BROUGHT TO THIS COUNTRY THROUGH NO FAULT OF THEIR OWN – DEPORTATION EXEMPTIONS IF ELECTED, LEAVING THEM TO FACE DEPORTATIONRomney Would Not Grant Undocumented Immigrants Deportation Exemptions Upon Taking Office. “Responding to a Globe request to clarify Romney’s statement to the Denver Post, Romney’s campaign said he would honor deportation exemptions issued by the Obama administration before his inauguration but would not grant new ones after taking office.” [Boston Globe, 10/2/12]Boston Globe: “Illegal Immigrants Who Did Not Receive Exemptions By Romney’s Inauguration Could Face Deportation.”? “Illegal immigrants who did not receive exemptions by Romney’s inauguration could face deportation, though Romney has said repeatedly that he has no plan to ‘round up’ undocumented immigrants for deportation.” [Boston Globe, 10/2/12]New York Times: “Romney Did Not Fill In New Details About The Reform Plan He Would Propose, Or Say How He Would Steer It Through Congress, Where There Is A Partisan Stalemate On The Issue.” [Caucus Blog, New York Times, 10/2/12]RYAN VOTED AGAINST THE DREAM ACT2010: Ryan Voted Against The Dream Act, Which Provided Legal Residency For Young, Undocumented Immigrants.?[HR 5281,?Vote #625, 12/8/10]NASAPRO-POTUSPresident Obama Has Put NASA On A New Course For The Future Of Space ExplorationPRESIDENT OBAMA HAS PUT NASA ON AN AMBITIOUS NEW COURSE FOR THE FUTURE OF SPACE EXPLORATIONPresident Obama’s Plan For NASA’s Future Invested In “New Innovations In Space Technology” To Develop A Long Term Program For Space Exploration. “We believe that the technology shortfall we face is so fundamental that incremental changes or tinkering on the margins will not be sufficient to address current and future needs. Rather, a fundamental ‘re-baselining’ of our Nation’s exploration efforts is needed. We must invest in fundamentally new innovations for space technology, and new ways of doing business, if we are to develop a space exploration and development program that is truly sustainable over the long term.” [NASA & White House Office of Science And Technology Policy, Joint Statement, 2/1/10]In March ?2012, NASA’s New Vehicle For Space Exploration Successfully Completed The First In A Series Of Milestones In Its Development, Taking One Step Closer To Its Planned First Launch. “America's next heavy-lift launch vehicle -- the Space Launch System -- is one step closer to its first launch in 2017, following the successful completion of the first phase of a combined set of milestone reviews. … The milestone reviews are two in a series of life-cycle reviews advancing the vehicle from concept design to flight readiness. Step one included a focused technical review of the program requirements with information on cost, schedule and risk. A standing review board comprised of technical experts from across the agency evaluated SLS program documents including vehicle requirements, specifications, plans, studies and reports. The board ensured specific criteria were met and confirmed that requirements are complete, validated and responsive to mission requirements.” [NASA Press Release, 3/30/12]The May 2012 Launch Of A Commercial Cargo Spacecraft To The International Space Station Opened “A New, Entrepreneurial Era In Spaceflight” “Opening a new, entrepreneurial era in spaceflight, a ship built by a billionaire businessman sped toward the International Space Station with a load of groceries and other supplies Tuesday after a spectacular, middle-of-the-night blastoff. The launch of the Falcon 9 rocket and its unmanned Dragon capsule marked the first time a commercial spacecraft has been sent to the orbiting outpost.” [Associated Press, 5/22/12]New York Times Editorial: “President Obama Has Proposed More Ambitious Manned Missions” To Destinations Including Mars And Asteroids. “President Obama has proposed more ambitious manned missions — using technologies yet to be developed — to an asteroid by 2025 and the orbit of Mars by the mid-2030s. Congress is, so far, unpersuaded. In tough economic times, it is fair to ask why substantial money should be spent on manned space travel, especially since unmanned probes and space telescopes have produced much richer scientific findings. The answer is that manned missions are still the prime symbol of a nation’s prowess in space.” ?[Editorial, New York Times, 7/22/11]Florida Today Editorial: President Obama’s Plan To Use Private Rockets Alongside NASA-Owned Vehicles Is “The Right Mix,” And Congress Should “Stop The Bickering” And Get Behind It. [Editorial: Florida Today (Brevard County, FL), 4/29/11]ATTACKRomney Has No Plans For Space Exploration, And Would Slash Its FundingROMNEY INTRODUCED A NASA POLICY PLAN THAT LARGELY COPIED CURRENT POLICIES UNDER PRESIDENT OBAMA…Florida Today: While Romney’s Campaign “Belittles” President Obama’s NASA Policy, His Policy “Departs From The Administration’s Vision In Only One Key Aspect — By Making It Clear That Spending On NASA Would At Best Stay Flat.” “Mitt Romney belittles President Barack Obama’s policy for human space exploration as incoherent, disjointed and defeatist. But Romney’s own broadly worded plan, released late last month, departs from the administration’s vision in only one key aspect — by making it clear that spending on NASA would at best stay flat.” [Florida Today, 10/1/12]Director Of The Spaceport Research & Technology Institute: “There Isn’t Anything That [Romney] Have Proposed Doing That The President Isn’t Already Very Much Doing.” “Romney’s proposed space policy ‘doesn’t differentiate between the president’s program ... other than to say: ‘Obama — bad. I’ll do a better job,’ ‘ said Dale Ketcham, director of the Spaceport Research & Technology Institute at the University of Central Florida. ‘There isn’t anything that they have proposed doing that the president isn’t already very much doing.’” [Florida Today, 10/1/12]NASA Watch: “The Following Was Issued By The Romney Camapign [Sic] In Florida - For All Intents And Purposes, This Is The Obama Administration's Space Policy.” [NASA Watch, 9/22/12]The Romney Campaign’s Space Plan Suggested An Increased Reliance On Commercial Firms To Get Americans Into Space – “That Mirrors The Obama Administration’s Plan.” “Romney did not suggest increased space spending — his budget plan would force cuts in domestic programs, including space — but on increased reliance on commercial firms to get Americans and their goods into space. That mirrors the Obama administration’s plan.”[Washington Post, 9/22/12]…JUST WITH LESS FUNDING9/22/12: Romney’s Campaign White Pager Rejected Additional Funding For NASA. “A strong and successful NASA does not require more funding, it needs clearer priorities. Romney will ensure that NASA has practical and sustainable missions. There will be a balance of pragmatic and top-priority science with inspirational and groundbreaking exploration programs.” [Romney NASA White Paper, 9/22/12]Washington Post: Romney’s “Budget Plan Would Force Cuts In Domestic Programs, Including Space.” “Romney did not suggest increased space spending — his budget plan would force cuts in domestic programs, including space — but on increased reliance on commercial firms to get Americans and their goods into space. That mirrors the Obama administration’s plan.” [Washington Post, 9/22/12]Orlando Sentinel Editorial: With No Cuts In Military Or Medicare Spending, Lower Taxes On Businesses And No Tax Hikes On The Middle Class, It’s Hard To See How Romney-Ryan “Would Steer The Country Toward A Balanced Budget Without Massive Cuts In Spending On Every Other Part Of The Budget — Health Care, Education, Transportation, NASA, Etc.” “Romney declared that he would ‘cut the deficit and put American on track to a balanced budget.’ Bravo. But he criticized looming cuts in military spending. In fact, the Pentagon is in line for at least $500 billion in cuts over the next decade only because the two parties failed to agree on an alternative plan to drop deficits by a total of at least $1.2 trillion over the next decade. In his speech, Romney also repeated his attack on the president's plan to bring down the growth of spending on Medicare by $716 billion over the next decade. Those cuts are aimed at insurance companies and health providers, and won't stop overall spending on the program from climbing. And in outlining his plan to create 12 million new jobs, Romney laid out some positions that would put further pressure on the budget. He vowed to cut business taxes, and not to raise them on the middle class. Take those positions together — no cuts in military or Medicare spending, lower taxes on businesses, no tax hikes on the middle class — and it hard to see how a President Romney would steer the country toward a balanced budget without massive cuts in spending on every other part of the budget — health care, education, transportation, NASA, etc. If that's what he has in mind, he should make it clear. Romney and his running mate, Paul Ryan, have talked about eliminating tax loopholes to generate more revenue, which could ease the need for spending cuts. They need to spell out those plans, specifying the loopholes, so voters can weigh their merits.” [Editorial, Orlando Sentinel, 9/2/12]The Ryan Budget Would Cut Domestic Discretionary Spending By 19 Percent, And “Since The House Has Refused To Specify What Would Be Cut, We Consider The Impacts If The Cuts Are Distributed Equally Across The Budget.” “Yesterday, House Republicans released their budget resolution for FY 2013… On top of the roughly $1 trillion in cuts in the Budget Control Act, it would be difficult to overstate the radicalism of the domestic cuts proposed by the House budget resolution.? In 2013, it would cut annual non-defense funding by 5 percent.? By 2014, the resolution would cut this funding by 19 percent in purely nominal terms. Over a decade, the resolution would cut over $1 trillion in non-defense spending on top of the reductions the President has already signed into law.? The cuts in non-defense discretionary funding are nearly three times as deep as the cuts under the so-called sequester — cuts that we and most objective analysts have always regarded as an unwise and unacceptable. What would it all mean? The Budget doesn’t say.? In fact, the Budget resolution includes a magic asterisk — or, in more technical parlance, an ‘allowance’— for $897 billion in unspecified cuts. But what could the resolution mean?? Since the House has refused to specify what would be cut, we consider the impacts if the cuts are distributed equally across the Budget. The result would be that.” [Jeff Zients, Acting Director of the Office of Management and Budget, , 3/21/12]2012: The Enacted NASA Budget Was $18.7 Billion. [Fiscal year 2013 Budget, Office of Management & Budget, p. 240]OUTSOURCING/OFFSHORINGPRO-POTUSPresident Obama Has Consistently Supported Insourcing As The Policy Of His AdministrationINSOURCING, NOT OUTSOURCING, HAS BEEN THE POLICY OF THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION—AND MUST BE THE POLICY OF OUR COUNTRY GOING FORWARDNew York Times: “[Until 2010] There Had Not Been A Single Year When Manufacturing Employment Rose Since 1997.” “When the Labor Department reports December employment numbers on Friday, it is expected that manufacturing companies will have added jobs in two consecutive years. Until last year, there had not been a single year when manufacturing employment rose since 1997.” [New York Times, 1/5/12]President Obama Has Brought WTO Trade Cases Against China At Twice The Rate Of His Predecessor.?The Obama Administration has filed 8 complaints against China with the World Trade Organization. Under the eight years of the Bush Administration, the U.S. filed 7 complaints against China with the WTO. [WTO List Of Disputes Cases, Accessed?9/15/12; Cleveland Plain Dealer,?9/16/12]Of The Eight Cases Brought By The Obama Administration, Four Have Been Decided – All In Favor Of The U.S. Of the eight cases brought by the Obama Administration, four have been decided. In a case on raw materials export restraints, the United States won victory at both the panel and appellate stages. In a case on electronic Payment Systems, the United States won victory at both the panel and appellate stages. In a case on Grain Oriented Flat-rolled Electrical Steel the United States won victory at the WTO panel. In a case on wind power subsidies, China terminated their program before the conclusion of the WTO panel. [List of WTO Cases, Accessed 10/2/12]President Obama Set A Goal Of Creating One Million New Manufacturing Jobs Over The Next Four Years.?“President Barack Obama will set a goal of creating 1 million new manufacturing jobs over the next four years and doubling exports during the next two years, according to?excerpts of his speech?to the Democratic National Convention released Thursday.” [CNN,?9/6/12]President Obama Proposed A Tax Reform Framework That Would Reduce The Top Corporate Tax Rate To 28 Percent While Lowering The Maximum Effective Rate For Manufacturers To 25 Percent. “President Obama?asked Congress on Wednesday to scrub the corporate tax code of dozens of loopholes and subsidies to reduce the top rate to 28 percent, from 35 percent, while giving preferences to manufacturers that would set their maximum effective rate at 25 percent.” [New York Times, 2/23/2012]President Obama’s Tax Reform Framework Removes Tax Deductions For Moving Production Overseas And Provides New Incentives For Bringing Production Back To The United States. “Remove tax deductions for moving productions overseas and provide new incentives for bringing production back to the United States. The tax code currently allows companies moving operations overseas to deduct their moving expenses—and reduce their taxes in the United States as a result. The President is proposing that companies will no longer be allowed to claim tax deductions for moving their operations abroad. At the same time, to help bring jobs home, the President is proposing to give a 20 percent income tax credit for the expenses of moving operations back into the United States.” [The President’s Framework For Tax Reform, February 2012]President Obama Created The National Export Initiative To Create Jobs By Putting America On The Path To Doubling Exports By 2015. “[In] order to enhance and coordinate Federal efforts to facilitate the creation of jobs in the United States through the promotion of exports… The NEI will help meet my Administration's goal of doubling exports over the next 5 years by working to remove trade barriers abroad, by helping firms -- especially small businesses -- overcome the hurdles to entering new export markets, by assisting with financing, and in general by pursuing a Government-wide approach to export advocacy abroad, among other steps.” [Executive Order – National Export Initiative, 3/11/10]President Obama Has Fought To Create American JobsUNDER PRESIDENT OBAMA, AMERICAN MANUFACTURERS HAVE ADDED JOBS FOR THE FIRST TIME SINCE THE LATE 1990s AND HAVE GAINED 459,000 MANUFACTURING JOBS SINCE JANUARY 2010New York Times: “[Until 2010] There Had Not Been A Single Year When Manufacturing Employment Rose Since 1997.” “When the Labor Department reports December employment numbers on Friday, it is expected that manufacturing companies will have added jobs in two consecutive years. Until last year, there had not been a single year when manufacturing employment rose since 1997.” [New York Times, 1/5/12]The U.S. Manufacturing Sector Has Added 459,000 Jobs Since January 2010.?In January 2010, the U.S. manufacturing sector employed 11,458,000 people. In September 2012, the U.S. manufacturing sector employed 11,917,000 people, for a gain of 459,000 jobs including the CES preliminary benchmark revision to March 2012 data. [Current Employment Statistics, Bureau Of Labor Statistics, accessed?10/5/12; CES Preliminary Benchmark Announcement, Bureau Of Labor Statistics, 9/27/12]\PRESIDENT OBAMA SUPPORTED INCENTIVES FOR BUSINESS INVESTMENT AND EXPANSION OF CLEAN ENERGY PRODUCTION AND MANUFACTURINGPresident Obama Signed 100 Percent Expensing In 2011, Which Was The Largest Temporary Investment Incentive In American History. “The largest temporary investment incentive in American history: The bill includes the proposal the President announced in September to temporarily allow businesses to expense all of their investments in 2011. According to the Treasury Department, complete expensing could put nearly $200 billion in the hands of businesses over the next two years —with most paid back over time. The provision will provide a crucial incentive to 2 million businesses to invest and create jobs in the U.S.” [White House Fact Sheet On The Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, And Job Creation Act Of 2010, accessed 9/22/12]President Obama Created The Advanced Manufacturing Tax Credit, Which Provided A 30 Percent Investment Credit To Manufacturers To Invest In Capital Equipment For U.S. Clean Energy Projects. From a White House fact sheet: “The Advanced Energy Manufacturing Tax Credit provides a 30 percent investment credit to manufacturers who invest in capital equipment to make components for clean energy projects in the U.S., working in tandem with the Production Tax Credit to create jobs and help reduce our dependence on foreign oil and secure a clean energy future for the United States.” [White House Fact Sheet, 5/22/12]President Obama Is Calling On Congress To Extend The Production Tax Credit That Spurs Clean Energy Production By Providing A Tax Credit For The Production Of Clean Energy Like Wind. From a White House fact sheet: “The Production Tax Credit, which expires at the end of 2012, provides a 2.2 cent per kilowatt hour credit for utility scale wind producers. Congress should act to extend the credit. By extending the PTC benefits for American clean energy producers we can avoid layoffs across the country: The wind industry projects that nearly 30,000 jobs will be lost next year if the PTC expires, including direct jobs as well as those in its supply chain.” [White House Fact Sheet, 5/22/12]?The American Wind Energy Association Projects That Failing To Extend The Production Tax Credits Would Put 37,000 Jobs At Risk. According to a press release from the American Wind Energy Association: “A recent study by Navigant Consulting found that extending the Production Tax Credit for wind energy will allow the industry to grow to 100,000 jobs in just four years, while an expiration would kill 37,000 jobs within a year.” [American Wind Energy Association, 4/25/12]PRESIDENT OBAMA HELPED BUSINESSES PARTNER WITH COMMUNITY COLLEGES TO CREATE DIRECT TRAINING PROGRAMS FOR WORKERSThe President Signed Into Law A $2 Billion Investment In Community Colleges To Provide Education And Career Training To Displaced Workers. ‘President Obama signed legislation on Tuesday to expand college access for millions of young Americans by revamping the federal student loan program in what he called “one of the most significant investments in higher education since the G.I. Bill.’…The law also invests $2 billion in community colleges over the next four years to provide education and career training programs to workers eligible for trade adjustment aid after dislocation in their industries.” [New York Times, 03/30/10]PRESIDENT OBAMA SIGNED FREE TRADE AGREEMENTS WITH SOUTH KOREA, COLOMBIA AND PANAMA, MARKING THE BIGGEST STEP FORWARD FOR U.S. TRADE IN NEARLY TWO DECADESAssociated Press: Romney Has “Ignored The Most Significant Expansion Of Trade Ties In Nearly Two Decades” In Accusing President Obama Of “Doing Nothing To Open New Markets.” “Mitt Romney ignored the most significant expansion of trade ties in nearly two decades when he accused the Obama administration Monday night of doing nothing to open new markets. Rick Santorum claimed to be taking purely the high road in campaign ads even as a new one from him veered from that path.”[Associated Press, 1/17/2012]President Obama Signed Free Trade Agreements With South Korea, Colombia And Panama In The Largest Trade Deal Since 1994, With The Agreements To Support An Estimated 70,000 Jobs.?“President Barack Obama will sign the South Korea, Colombia and Panama free trade agreements on Oct. 21, the White House announced. The accords were approved by Congress last week. The agreement with South Korea is the largest trade deal since 1994 and will widen U.S. export access for everything from cars to farm goods and support about 70,000 jobs, according to the administration.” [Bloomberg,?10/18/11]President Obama Has A Plan To Send American Goods Around The World, Not American JobsPRESIDENT OBAMA HAS A CONCRETE PLAN TO SEND AMERICAN GOODS AROUND THE WORLD, NOT AMERICAN JOBSPresident Obama Set A Goal Of Creating One Million New Manufacturing Jobs Over The Next Four Years.?“President Barack Obama will set a goal of creating 1 million new manufacturing jobs over the next four years and doubling exports during the next two years, according to?excerpts of his speech?to the Democratic National Convention released Thursday.” [CNN,?9/6/12]President Obama Proposed A Tax Reform Framework That Would Reduce The Top Corporate Tax Rate To 28 Percent While Lowering The Maximum Effective Rate For Manufacturers To 25 Percent. “President Obama?asked Congress on Wednesday to scrub the corporate tax code of dozens of loopholes and subsidies to reduce the top rate to 28 percent, from 35 percent, while giving preferences to manufacturers that would set their maximum effective rate at 25 percent.” [New York Times, 2/23/2012]President Obama’s Tax Reform Framework Removes Tax Deductions For Moving Production Overseas And Provides New Incentives For Bringing Production Back To The United States. “Remove tax deductions for moving productions overseas and provide new incentives for bringing production back to the United States. The tax code currently allows companies moving operations overseas to deduct their moving expenses—and reduce their taxes in the United States as a result. The President is proposing that companies will no longer be allowed to claim tax deductions for moving their operations abroad. At the same time, to help bring jobs home, the President is proposing to give a 20 percent income tax credit for the expenses of moving operations back into the United States.” [The President’s Framework For Tax Reform, February 2012]President Obama Proposed A Community College To Career Fund, Which Would Establish Partnerships Between Schools And Employers And Train 2 Million People For High-Demand, Skilled Careers. “The Obama administration will propose an $8 billion, three-year plan for shoring up career programs at community colleges to help train 2 million people for the workforce. The plan, to be administered by the Education and Labor departments, designates funds in the 2013 budget to establish training courses for skilled careers, develop partnerships between the schools and employers, and help state and local governments attract businesses, according to an Education Department statement. Shrinking state budgets and increasing numbers of unemployed people in the wake of the recession that began in 2007 have strained community colleges. The funding would help colleges accommodate more students in need of job skills, said David Baime of the?American Association?of Community Colleges in?Washington... The program, called the Community College to Career Fund, will pay to expand training and certification programs at community colleges for growing employment fields.” [Bloomberg, 2/13/2012]The President Is Proposing To Make Permanent The Tax Cut To Eliminate Taxes On Capital Gains On Certain Stock Investments In Small Businesses. “The President is proposing to make permanent the tax cut to eliminate taxes on capital gains on certain stock investments in small businesses. In addition, this tax cut would be expanded so that it would also be allowed under the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) and to increase the “rollover” period for qualified small business stock investments, making the permanent elimination of capital gains taxes available to more investors.” [“Moving America’s Small Businesses And Entrepreneurs Forward,” White House National Economic Council, May 2012]President Obama Proposed A 10 Percent Income Tax Credit For Hiring New Employees Or Raising The Salaries Of Existing Employees And Proposed Extending 100 Percent Expensing In 2012 For All Businesses. “The president called for passage of proposed legislation that would provide a 10 percent income tax credit for firms that create new jobs or increase wages in 2012 and extends 100 percent expensing in 2012 for all businesses.” [RTT News, 5/16/12]CONTRASTPresident Obama Supports Insourcing, But Romney Has A Record Of OutsourcingPRESIDENT OBAMA HAS DOUBLED THE RATE OF TRADE ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS WE’VE TAKEN AGAINST CHINA TO ENSURE AN EVEN PLAYING FIELD FOR AMERICAN WORKERSPresident Obama Has Brought WTO Trade Cases Against China At Twice The Rate Of His Predecessor.?The Obama Administration has filed 8 complaints against China with the World Trade Organization. Under the eight years of the Bush Administration, the U.S. filed 7 complaints against China with the WTO. [WTO List Of Disputes Cases, Accessed?9/15/12; Cleveland Plain Dealer,?9/16/12]Of The Eight Cases Brought By The Obama Administration, Four Have Been Decided – All In Favor Of The U.S. Of the eight cases brought by the Obama Administration, four have been decided. In a case on raw materials export restraints, the United States won victory at both the panel and appellate stages. In a case on electronic Payment Systems, the United States won victory at both the panel and appellate stages. In a case on Grain Oriented Flat-rolled Electrical Steel the United States won victory at the WTO panel. In a case on wind power subsidies, China terminated their program before the conclusion of the WTO panel. [List of WTO Cases, Accessed 10/2/12]PRESIDENT OBAMA WOULD END TAX BREAKS FOR COMPANIES SHIPPING JOBS OVERSEAS AND CUT TAXES FOR COMPANIES BRINGING JOBS BACK TO AMERICA…President Obama’s Tax Reform Framework Removes Tax Deductions For Moving Production Overseas And Provides New Incentives For Bringing Production Back To The United States. “Remove tax deductions for moving productions overseas and provide new incentives for bringing production back to the United States. The tax code currently allows companies moving operations overseas to deduct their moving expenses—and reduce their taxes in the United States as a result. The President is proposing that companies will no longer be allowed to claim tax deductions for moving their operations abroad. At the same time, to help bring jobs home, the President is proposing to give a 20 percent income tax credit for the expenses of moving operations back into the United States.” [The President’s Framework For Tax Reform, February 2012]…BUT ROMNEY ATTACKED THE PRESIDENT’S PLAN, SAYING IT WOULD “KILL JOBS”Romney “Attacked President Obama's New Tax Plan” Which Would “Eliminate A Number Of Existing Tax Breaks And Subsidies For Corporations And Reduce The Marginal Corporate Income Tax Rate From 35 Percent Down To 28 Percent.” [Washington Times, 2/22/12; Romney Rally, Chandler, AZ, 2/22/12]Romney: President Obama’s Corporate Tax Reform Proposal Would “Kill Jobs.” “Mitt Romney charged Wednesday that President Obama's new corporate tax proposal would kill jobs, and instead offered some details of his own plan to address the nation's tax code. … ‘He's proposing today a corporate tax plan which I understand sounds like he's lowering taxes but he's raising taxes – raising taxes on businesses by hundreds of billions of dollars,’ Romney said. ‘Raising taxes will kill jobs. My plan will create jobs. That's the difference between the two of us.’” [CNN, 2/22/12; Romney Rally, Chandler, AZ, 2/22/12]ROMNEY’S PLAN TO ALLOW CORPORATIONS INVESTING OVERSEAS TO AVOID U.S. TAXES COULD ENTICE COMPANIES TO CREATE 800,000 JOBS OVERSEASReuters: “A Territorial System Would Prompt U.S. Companies To Shift Offshore Even More Income Than They Already Do And Jobs Would Follow, Worsening Unemployment And The Economy, Critics Say.” [Reuters, 9/14/11]Citizens For Tax Justice: “Giving Corporations A Permanent Tax Exemption For Their Purported Offshore Profits Will Make Things Much Worse.” [Reuters, 9/14/11]Economist Kim Clausing: Under A Territorial Tax System “The Tax Incentive To Locate Jobs In Low-Tax Countries Would Increase Significantly” Which “Would Increase Employment In Low-Tax Countries By About 800,000 Jobs.” “What would the effects be if the United States shifted to a pure territorial system? … it would encourage job creation abroad instead of at home. Based on my research and that of other experts in international taxation, it is possible to estimate how many jobs are at stake in this debate. In 2008 U.S. multinational firms employed 10 million workers in affiliated firms abroad. Under a pure territorial tax system, the tax incentive to locate jobs in low-tax countries would increase significantly, which I calculate would increase employment in low-tax countries by about 800,000 jobs.” [Kimberly A. Clausing, A Challenging Time for International Tax Policy, Tax Notes, 7/16/12]Economist Kim Clausing: Under A Territorial Tax System, The 800,000 Jobs Created Overseas “Could Displace Jobs At Home.” “Under a pure territorial tax system, the tax incentive to locate jobs in low-tax countries would increase significantly, which I calculate would increase employment in low-tax countries by about 800,000 jobs… If U.S. unemployment rates are low, jobs abroad need not displace jobs at home, although the composition of jobs may change (and multinational corporate jobs are often good, high-wage jobs). In this economy, however, those new, low-tax-country jobs could displace jobs at home. With high unemployment rates, why further tilt the playing field in favor of jobs in low-tax countries? And given today’s budget climate, avoiding further erosion of the corporate tax base should be a priority.” [Kimberly A. Clausing, A Challenging Time for International Tax Policy, Tax Notes, 7/16/12]ATTACKRomney’s Corporate Tax Plan Would Encourage Companies To Shop Jobs OverseasROMNEY’S PLAN TO ALLOW CORPORATIONS INVESTING OVERSEAS TO AVOID U.S. TAXES COULD ENTICE COMPANIES TO CREATE 800,000 JOBS OVERSEASReuters: “A Territorial System Would Prompt U.S. Companies To Shift Offshore Even More Income Than They Already Do And Jobs Would Follow, Worsening Unemployment And The Economy, Critics Say.” [Reuters, 9/14/11]Citizens For Tax Justice: “Giving Corporations A Permanent Tax Exemption For Their Purported Offshore Profits Will Make Things Much Worse.” [Reuters, 9/14/11]Economist Kim Clausing: Under A Territorial Tax System “The Tax Incentive To Locate Jobs In Low-Tax Countries Would Increase Significantly” Which “Would Increase Employment In Low-Tax Countries By About 800,000 Jobs.” “What would the effects be if the United States shifted to a pure territorial system? … it would encourage job creation abroad instead of at home. Based on my research and that of other experts in international taxation, it is possible to estimate how many jobs are at stake in this debate. In 2008 U.S. multinational firms employed 10 million workers in affiliated firms abroad. Under a pure territorial tax system, the tax incentive to locate jobs in low-tax countries would increase significantly, which I calculate would increase employment in low-tax countries by about 800,000 jobs.” [Kimberly A. Clausing, A Challenging Time for International Tax Policy, Tax Notes, 7/16/12]Economist Kim Clausing: Under A Territorial Tax System, The 800,000 Jobs Created Overseas “Could Displace Jobs At Home.” “Under a pure territorial tax system, the tax incentive to locate jobs in low-tax countries would increase significantly, which I calculate would increase employment in low-tax countries by about 800,000 jobs… If U.S. unemployment rates are low, jobs abroad need not displace jobs at home, although the composition of jobs may change (and multinational corporate jobs are often good, high-wage jobs). In this economy, however, those new, low-tax-country jobs could displace jobs at home. With high unemployment rates, why further tilt the playing field in favor of jobs in low-tax countries? And given today’s budget climate, avoiding further erosion of the corporate tax base should be a priority.” [Kimberly A. Clausing, A Challenging Time for International Tax Policy, Tax Notes, 7/16/12]Romney Outsourced Massachusetts State JobsROMNEY VETOED A PROPOSAL TO PREVENT MASSACHUSETTS FROM SENDING STATE JOBS OVERSEAS AND SIGNED A CONTRACT FOR A CALL CENTER IN INDIA2004: Romney Vetoed Legislation That Would Have Barred Outsourcing of Massachusetts State Jobs Overseas. “In a surprise move, Romney also vetoed a provision barring overseas outsourcing by vendors doing business with the state, even though in March he proposed a $29 million package of incentives designed to discourage Massachusetts companies from moving jobs out of state. Romney said that the plan included in the budget was hastily crafted and would drive away some businesses while failing to create jobs here.” [Boston Globe, 6/26/04]Romney’s Administration Signed A Contract For A Food Stamp System That Involved A Call Center In India.?“When Romney was governor of Massachusetts, his administration signed a $160,000-per-month contract with Citigroup to operate an electronic food stamp system that included a consumer call center in India.” [Boston Globe, Political Intelligence,?5/2/12]Boston Herald: “Gov. Mitt Romney Admitted Yesterday That He Sent State Jobs To India And Then Utah.” [Boston Herald, 2/23/06]2005: A United State Government Accountability Office Report Showed Massachusetts Conducted Offshoring In Three State Programs - The Child Support Enforcement, Food Stamp, And Unemployment Insurance Program. “Forty-three of 50 states and the District of Columbia have offshoring in? one or more of the four state-administered programs. Offshoring was most? often cited by state program directors and contractors in the Food Stamp? (31 of 51) and TANF programs (16 of 51). Occurrences of offshoring were? less frequently reported by state program directors and contractors in the? Child Support Enforcement (12 of 51) and Unemployment Insurance? programs (8 of 51).” The report showed Massachusetts had three state-administered programs with at “least one contract with offshoring” being “Child Support Enforcement,” “Food Stamp,” and “Unemployment Insurance.” [Government Accountability Office Report, “Offshoring In Six? Human Services? Programs,” March 2006] Romney Led Investments In Companies That Were “Pioneers” In OutsourcingROMNEY LED INVESTMENTS IN COMPANIES THAT OUTSOURCED JOBS, INCLUDING SOME COMPANIES THAT GREW INTO SOME OF THE LARGEST OUTSOURCING AND OFFSHORING COMPANIES IN THE WORLDWashington Post: “Mitt Romney’s Financial Company, Bain Capital, Invested In A Series Of Firms That Specialized In Relocating Jobs Done By American Workers To New Facilities In Low-Wage Countries Like China And India.” [Washington Post, 6/22/12]Washington Post: “During The 15 Years That Romney Was Actively Involved In Running Bain…It Owned Companies That Were Pioneers In The Practice Of Shipping Work From The United States To Overseas Call Centers And Factories.” “During the nearly 15 years that Romney was actively involved in running Bain, a private equity firm that he founded, it owned companies that were pioneers in the practice of shipping work from the United States to overseas call centers and factories making computer components, according to filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission.” [Washington Post, 6/22/12]Washington Post Ombudsman: “Bain Knowingly And Far-Sightedly Made Strategic Investments, With Romney At The Helm, In These Pioneering Outsourcing Firms In The Late 1990s, Which Grew Into Some Of The Largest Outsourcing And Offshoring Companies In The World. And Romney And Bain Shared In Their Profits While He Was Chief Executive And After He Left.” [Washington Post, 6/29/12]Bain Capital Earned Double The Return On Its Investment In Holson Burnes But Workers Were Left Jobless And Work Was Shipped Overseas. “For Bain, the plan was a financial success: Holson Burnes raised $24 million from its initial public offering on the over-the-counter trading market, with Bain executives retaining the majority of the company’s shares. Bain, in the end, reaped more than double the return on its initial investment. But workers were left jobless just as the local economy began to slump. … The cost-cutting continued at Holson Burnes. By 1992, the company manufactured nearly 75 percent of its photo frames overseas, according to documents filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission. One of the company’s clock-making divisions also shipped work overseas from a Rhode Island plant.” [Associated Press, 12/19/11]Bain Capital Invested In A Circuit-Board Manufacturer Company That Sent Production From Colorado To Mexico. “Two companies that Bain had an investment in closed a printed circuit-board manufacturing plant they had in the state, costing several hundred jobs when production was sent to Dallas in one case and to Mexico in another.” [Denver Post, 5/29/12]During Bain Capital’s Investment, Circuit-Board Manufacturer SMTC Corp. Announced It Would Close The Denver, CO Plant And Move Production To Chihuahua, Mexico. “To offset losses, SMTC will close an assembly plant in Denver and take a one-time charge of $15 million to $20 million. Production from Denver will move to Chihuahua, Mexico.” [, 3/30/01]WHILE AT BAIN CAPITAL, ROMNEY UTILIZED OFFSHORE SHELL COMPANIES IN TAX HAVENS TO HELP ELIGIBLE INVESTORS AVOID PAYING U.S. TAXESWhile At Bain Capital “Romney Utilized Shell Companies In Two Offshore Tax Havens To Help Eligible Investors Avoid Paying U.S. Taxes” And In Doing So “Boosted Profits For Romney And His Partners.” “While in private business, Mitt Romney utilized shell companies in two offshore tax havens to help eligible investors avoid paying U.S. taxes, federal and state records show. Romney gained no personal tax benefit from the legal operations in Bermuda and the Cayman Islands. But aides to the Republican presidential hopeful and former colleagues acknowledged that the tax-friendly jurisdictions helped attract billions of additional investment dollars to Romney’s former company, Bain Capital, and thus boosted profits for Romney and his partners. Romney has based his White House bid, in part, on the skills he learned as co-founder and chief of Bain Capital, one of the nation’s most successful private equity groups. His campaign cites his record while governor of Massachusetts of closing state tax loopholes; his involvement with foreign tax havens had not previously come to light.” [Los Angeles Times, 12/16/07]ROMNEY CONTINUES TO HOLD INVESTMENTS OVERSEAS, INCLUDING KNOWN TAX HAVENSWall Street Journal: “Reflecting The Complexity Of Gov. And Mrs. Romney's Investments, The Couple Reported $3.5 Million In Foreign Income. They Also Filed Various Forms Reflecting Holdings In Switzerland, Ireland, Germany, The Cayman Islands And Elsewhere.” [Wall Street Journal, 9/21/12]ABC News: “Although It Is Not Apparent On His Financial Disclosure Form, Mitt Romney Has Millions Of Dollars Of His Personal Wealth In Investment Funds Set Up In The Cayman Islands, A Notorious Caribbean Tax Haven.” [ABC News, 1/18/12]RACE AND POVERTYPRO-POTUSPresident Obama Took Action To Support Americans During The Worst Of The Economic CrisisPRESIDENT OBAMA TOOK ACTION TO SUPPORT AMERICANS DURING THE WORST OF THE ECONOMIC CRISIS AND HAS FOUGHT TO RESTORE THE LADDER TO THE MIDDLE CLASSINITIATIVES IN THE RECOVERY ACT KEPT NEARLY SEVEN MILLION PEOPLE OUT OF POVERTY Center On Budget And Policy Priorities: Six Temporary Recovery Act Initiatives Kept Nearly Seven Million People Out Of Poverty In 2010. “Six temporary federal initiatives enacted in 2009 and 2010 to bolster the economy by lifting consumers’ incomes and purchases kept nearly 7 million Americans out of poverty in 2010, under an alternative measure of poverty that takes into account the impact of government benefit programs and taxes.? These initiatives — three new or expanded tax credits, two enhancements of unemployment insurance, and an expansion of benefits through the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, formerly called food stamps) — were part of the 2009 Recovery Act.? Congress subsequently extended or expanded some of them.” [Center On Budget And Policy Priorities, 11/7/2011]PRESIDENT OBAMA SECURED A PAYROLL TAX CUT THAT AMOUNTS TO A 2 PERCENT RAISE FOR WORKING AMERICANSPresident Obama Extended The Payroll Tax Cut For 160 Million Workers Through 2012. “The Internal Revenue Service today released revised Form 941?enabling employers to properly report the newly-extended payroll tax cut benefiting nearly 160 million workers. Under the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012, enacted yesterday, workers will continue to receive larger paychecks for the rest of this year based on a lower social security tax withholding rate of 4.2 percent, which is two percentage points less than the 6.2 percent rate in effect prior to 2011. This reduced rate, originally in effect for all of 2011, was extended through the end of February by the Temporary Payroll Tax Cut Continuation Act of 2011, enacted Dec. 23.” [I.R.S. Press Release, 2/23/2012]The Payroll Tax Cut Reduces Payroll Taxes By 2 Percent, Amounting To A 2 Percent Raise For Working Americans. “The President secured the Making Work Pay tax credit in 2009 and 2010 and then a payroll tax cut that amounted to a 2 percent raise for working Americans in 2011.” [White House Fact Sheet, 10/14/11]The Payroll Tax Cut Saves The Average Household Earning $50,000 A Year $1,000 In Taxes Annually, Or $40 Per Pay Period. “If you're an average taxpayer, making $50,000 a year, you'll pay an extra $1,000 in Social Security tax next year. That's about $20 a week, or about $40 a pay period for those who get paid every other week.” [MSN Money, 12/20/2011]PRESIDENT OBAMA EXPANDED AND EXTENDED EXPANSIONS OF THE EARNED INCOME TAX CREDIT AND CHILD TAX CREDIT, BENEFITTING MILLIONS OF FAMILIESCenter On Budget And Policy Priorities:? Recovery Act “Expansions In The Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) And Child Tax Credit (CTC) Kept 1.6 Million People Out Of Poverty” In 2010.? [Center On Budget And Policy Priorities, 11/7/2011]The Expansion Of The Earned Income Tax Credit Was Worth $600 On Average To Families With Three Or More Children And Benefited An Estimated 6.5 Million Working Parents With 15 Million Children. “The Earned Income Tax Credit?— The legislation continues a Recovery Act expansion of the Earned Income Tax Credit worth, on average, $600 for families with 3 or more children, and reduces the “marriage penalty” faced by working married families. Together, these enhancements to the EITC will help 6.5 million working families with 15 million children.” [Internal Revenue Service, 2/3/2012]The Expanded Refundability Of The Child Tax Credit Was Continued In The 2010 Tax Deal, Providing An Ongoing Tax Cut To 10.5 Million Lower-Income Families With 18 Million Children. “The Child Tax Credit?—?The $3,000 refundability threshold established in the Recovery Act for the Child Tax Credit will be extended, ensuring an ongoing tax cut to 10.5 million lower-income families with 18 million children.” [Internal Revenue Service Fact Sheet, 2/3/2012]UNDER PRESIDENT OBAMA, THE RISE IN POVERTY HAS HALTED, FEDERAL LIFELINE PROGRAMS HAVE SAVED MILLIONS FROM POVERTY, AND KEY LABOR MARKET DATA INDICATES THE POVERTY RATE WILL FALL IN 2012The Change In The Poverty Rate From 2010 To 2011 Was Not Statistically Significant, Dropping From 15.1 Percent To 15.0 Percent. The nation's official poverty rate in 2011 was 15.0 percent, with 46.247 million people in poverty. The nation’s poverty rate in 2010 was 15.1 percent, with 46,343 million people in poverty. [U.S. Census Bureau, 09/12/12] CNN Money: “Federal Lifeline Programs Have Helped Keep Millions Out Of Poverty.” “Federal lifeline programs have helped keep millions out of poverty, U.S. Census data shows.Social Security payments lifted 21.4 million people -- including 14.5 million senior citizens -- over the poverty line in 2011, while unemployment benefits prevented 2.3 million Americans from falling into poverty.” [CNN Money, 09/13/12]Center On Budget And Policy Priorities: Key Labor Market Data Indicates That The Poverty Rate Will Likely Fall In 2012. “The poverty rate is likely to start falling in 2012.? Key labor market data — particularly the strength of private, non-farm job creation and the drop in the number of unemployed workers — are more positive so far in 2012 than they were in 2011.” [Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 09/12/12] President Obama Believes That Education Is The Best Anti-Poverty EffortPRESIDENT OBAMA BELIEVES THE BEST ANTI-POVERTY PROGRAM IS EDUCATION, AND HAS DOUBLED PELL GRANT FUNDING AND CREATED NEW TAX CREDITS TO HELP STUDENTS WITH COLLEGE TUITION COSTSPresident Obama: “In The 21st?Century, The Best Anti-Poverty Program Around Is A World-Class Education.”?“Now, this year, we've broken through the stalemate between left and right by launching a national competition to improve our schools. And the idea here is simple: Instead of rewarding failure, we only reward success. Instead of funding the status quo, we only invest in reform -- reform that raises student achievement; inspires students to excel in math and science; and turns around failing schools that steal the future of too many young Americans, from rural communities to the inner city. In the 21st century, the best anti-poverty program around is a world-class education. (Applause.) And in this country, the success of our children cannot depend more on where they live than on their potential.” [State of the Union Address,?01/27/10]PRESIDENT OBAMA CREATED A TAX CREDIT THAT HELPS COVER UP TO $10,000 OF COLLEGE TUITION OVER FOUR YEARSPresident Obama Established The American Opportunity Tax Credit, Which Provides Up To $10,000 For Up To Four Years In Tuition Relief. “The President created the American Opportunity Tax Credit (AOTC) as part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, which he signed into law in February 2009. The AOTC replaces the Hope Scholarship credit for Tax Years 2009 and 2010, increasing the benefits for nearly all Hope credit recipients and many other students by providing a maximum benefit up to $2,500 per student – 100 percent of their first $2,000 in tuition and 25 percent of the next $2,000 –expanding the income range over which taxpayers can claim a credit, and making the credit partially refundable. 4.5 Million Students and Families Received a Tax Refund from the AOTC in 2009 With an Average Value of $800, which they would not have been eligible for in 2008.” [Department of the Treasury, 10/12/10]In 2011, 9.4 Million Families Benefitted From The American Opportunity Tax Credit. ?“Through the American Opportunity Tax Credit, 9.4 million families in 2011 received as much as $2,500 for tuition, fees, and textbook expenses.” [The Christian Science Monitor, 01/13/12]PRESIDENT OBAMA DOUBLED INVESTMENT IN PELL GRANTS, HELPING NEARLY 10 MILLION STUDENTS AFFORD COLLEGE, USING SAVINGS FROM ELIMINATING THE MIDDLEMEN IN THE STUDENT LOAN SYSTEMStudent Loan Reform Eliminated $68 Billion Paid To Banks Acting As Intermediaries To Invest In Pell Grants. “The new law will eliminate fees paid to private banks to act as intermediaries in providing loans to college students and use much of the nearly $68 billion in savings over 11 years to expand Pell grants and make it easier for students to repay outstanding loans after graduating. The law also invests $2 billion in community colleges over the next four years to provide education and career training programs to workers eligible for trade adjustment aid after dislocation in their industries.” [New York Times, 3/30/10]President Obama Doubled Funding For Pell Grants, Raising The Maximum Award And Increasing The Number Of Recipients To Nearly 10 Million Students. “Thanks in part to these new investments, President Obama has roughly doubled funding for the need-based Pell Grant program, raising the maximum award from $4,731 in fiscal year 2008 to an estimated $5,635 for fiscal year 2013 and increasing the number of recipients by approximately 50 percent to nearly 10 million students.” [Department of Education Budget Summary, Accessed 04/15/12]During The 2011 – 2012 Award Year, 9.7 Million Low And Middle-Income Undergraduates Received Pell Grants Worth, With An Average Award Of $3,678. “[The Federal Pell Grant Program] helps ensure financial access to postsecondary education—disbursing $36 billion to 9.7 million low and middle-income undergraduate students during the 2011-2012 award year, with an average award of $3,678.” [Department of Education Budget Request, FY2013]PRESIDENT OBAMA HAS INCREASED FUNDING FOR HEAD START AND EARLY HEAD START TO SERVE AN ADDITIONAL 64,000 CHILDREN FROM WORKING CLASS FAMILIESThrough The Recovery Act, President Obama Invested In Head Start And Early Head Start, Expanding The Programs To Reach An Additional 64,000 Children And Families. “Through the Recovery Act, the President made a historic investment in Head Start and Early Head Start, giving 64,000 additional children access to child care. The program now serves 968,000 children, the highest service level in the history of the program, and funding was secured by the President in subsequent budget requests to maintain this level of service.” [White House Council on Women and Girls, April 2012]Head Start Served 968,000 Children In FY 2010. “This funding would allow the program to continue to serve 968,000 children – including approximately 114,000 infants and toddlers in Early Head Start – the number served in FY 2010.” [Department of Health and Human Services Justification of Estimates for Appropriations Committee, Accessed 5/3/12]President Obama Has Expanded Tax Cuts For Working FamiliesPRESIDENT OBAMA EXPANDED THE EARNED INCOME AND CHILD TAX CREDITS TO KEEP 1.6 MILLION PEOPLE OUT OF POVERTY IN 2010Center On Budget And Policy Priorities:? Recovery Act “Expansions In The Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) And Child Tax Credit (CTC) Kept 1.6 Million People Out Of Poverty” In 2010.? [Center On Budget And Policy Priorities, 11/7/2011]The Expansion Of The Earned Income Tax Credit Was Worth $600 On Average To Families With Three Or More Children And Benefited An Estimated 6.5 Million Working Parents With 15 Million Children. “The Earned Income Tax Credit?— The legislation continues a Recovery Act expansion of the Earned Income Tax Credit worth, on average, $600 for families with 3 or more children, and reduces the “marriage penalty” faced by working married families. Together, these enhancements to the EITC will help 6.5 million working families with 15 million children.” [Internal Revenue Service, 2/3/2012]The Expanded Refundability Of The Child Tax Credit Was Continued In The 2010 Tax Deal, Providing An Ongoing Tax Cut To 10.5 Million Lower-Income Families With 18 Million Children. “The Child Tax Credit?—?The $3,000 refundability threshold established in the Recovery Act for the Child Tax Credit will be extended, ensuring an ongoing tax cut to 10.5 million lower-income families with 18 million children.” [Internal Revenue Service Fact Sheet, 2/3/2012]PRESIDENT OBAMA WOULD CONTINUE EXPANSIONS OF THE CHILD TAX CREDITAND EARNED INCOME TAX CREDIT The President’s 2013 Budget Extends Expansions Of The Child Tax Credit And Earned Income Tax Credit for Lower-Income Families.?The Budget permanently extends expansions of the Child Tax Credit and the Earned Income Tax Credit that were passed in the Recovery Act and continued as part of the bipartisan Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization and Job Creation Act that the President negotiated and signed into law in December of 2010. The expanded refundability of the Child Tax Credit provides a larger credit to 11.8 million families with 21.3 million children. The expansion of the Earned Income Tax Credit is worth up to $655 for families with three or more children, benefitting 5.8 million families with 12.5 million children. [White House fact sheet, accessed 08/12/12]RONALD REAGAN SUPPORTED THE EITC TO REWARD WORK AMONG LOW INCOME WORKERSRonald Reagan Strongly Supported The Earned Income Tax Credit In His 1986 Tax Reforms, Calling It “Perhaps The Biggest Antipoverty Program In Our History.” “Reagan strongly supported the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), which sends checks to Americans who work but earn less than around $46,000 a year, depending on family size. Recipients of the credit are among those who don’t pay income tax, but Reagan never regarded that as a problem. His administration estimated that the 1986 reform of the tax code would remove 6 million working poor from the tax rolls. Reagan called the reform a ‘sweeping victory for fairness’ and ‘perhaps the biggest antipoverty program in our history.’” [Businessweek, 09/19/12]Pushback: A Record Number Of Americans Are On Food Stamps Under President ObamaSNAP PLAYED A CRITICAL ROLE IN KEEPING MILLIONS OF AMERICANS OUT OF POVERTY DURING THE RECESSION AND SERVES OUR COUNTRY’S MOST VULNERABLE CITIZENSINCREASES IN SNAP ENROLLMENT WERE DRIVEN BY THE JOB LOSSES IN THE RECESSIONSNAP Caseloads Began To Significantly Increase In Late 2007 As Part Of A Temporary Measure To Account For The Recession. “SNAP has experienced large but temporary growth in recent years. Caseloads have increased significantly since late 2007, as the recession and the lagging economic recovery dramatically increased the number of low-income households who qualify and apply for help.” [Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 07/09/12]National Women’s Law Center: The Increases In Poverty In 2010 Were Driven By A Surge In Job Losses Following The Onset Of The Great Recession In December 2007. “The increases in poverty in 2010, which came on top of a sharp upturn in poverty in 2009, were driven by a surge in job losses following the onset of the Great Recession in December 2007.”[National Women’s Law Center report, September 2011]THE RECOVERY ACT EXPANDED THE SUPPLEMENTAL NUTRITION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM, KEEPING NEARLY 4 MILLION AMERICANS OUT OF POVERTY IN 2010 AND REDUCED THE NUMBER OF CHILDREN LIVING IN EXTREME POVERTY IN 2011 BY HALFThe Obama Administration Expanded Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) Benefits To Help Keep An Additional 3.9 Million People – Including 1.7 Million Children – Above The Poverty Line In 2010. “The Administration also expanded Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits, a critical program which helped keep an additional 3.9 million people, including 1.7 million children, above the poverty line in 2010.” [White House, October 2011]New York Times Editorial: “In 2009, Thanks In Large Part To The Obama Stimulus, The Rise In Poverty Was Halted – A Significant Accomplishment At A Time Of Worsening Unemployment.” “In 2009, thanks in large part to the Obama stimulus, the rise in poverty was halted -- a significant accomplishment at a time of worsening unemployment. When data for 2010 are released in the fall, poverty is expected to have stayed in check because the stimulus, including aid to states and bolstered unemployment benefits, was still in effect last year.” [Editorial, New York Times, 6/25/11] If The Government Safety Net As A Whole – Existing Policies, As Well As The Temporary Recovery Act Policies – Had Not Existed In 2010, The Poverty Rate Would Have Been 28.6 Percent, Nearly Twice The Actual 15.5 Percent. “In addition to these six provisions enacted in 2009 and 2010, existing policies to promote family income kept millions of additional Americans out of poverty in 2010. Under the same NAS poverty measure, the SNAP and unemployment insurance benefits provided under ongoing law (before taking account of the effect of the program expansions examined here) kept more than 3 million and 1 million people out of poverty in 2010, respectively. If the government safety net as a whole (existing policies, as well as the temporary Recovery Act policies) had not existed in 2010, the poverty rate would have been 28.6 percent, nearly twice the actual 15.5 percent.” [Center On Budget And Policy Priorities, 11/7/2011]SNAP Benefits Reduced The Number Of Children In Extreme Poverty In 2011 By Half – From 2.8 Million To 1.4 Million. “In sum, we estimate that, as of the beginning of 2011, about 1.46 million U.S. households with about 2.8 million children were surviving on $2 or less in income per person per day in a given month. …When we consider SNAP benefits as equivalent to dollars, this reduces the number of extremely poor households with children by about half. We estimate that SNAP currently saves roughly 1.4 million children from extreme poverty… These in-kind safety-net programs are playing a vital role, and are probably blunting some of the hardship that American children living in extreme poverty would otherwise face.” [National Poverty Center, 02/20/12]THE MAJORITY OF SNAP RECIPIENTS ARE CHILDREN, ELDERLY, OR DISABLED47 Percent Of SNAP Participants Are Children. “Forty-seven percent of all participants are less than 18 years old, and about half of all households include at least one child. Households with children receive 71 percent of all SNAP benefits. About 56 percent of the households with children are single parent families.” [U.S. Department of Agriculture, 04/12/12]8 Percent Of SNAP Participants Are Elderly. “Eight percent of all participants are age 60 or older, 73 percent of whom live alone.” [U.S. Department of Agriculture, 04/12/12]About 20 Percent Of SNAP Participants Are Disabled. “About 16 percent of all households include an elderly member, and about 20 percent include a disabled member.” [U.S. Department of Agriculture, 04/12/12]SNAP SUPPORTS DISABLED VETERANS, WORKING FAMILIES, AND DISASTER VICTIMSThe Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Aids Disabled Veterans, As Well As Their Spouses And Children. “Generally, a person is considered to be disabled for SNAP purposes if he or she: … Is a veteran who is totally disabled, permanently housebound, or in need of regular aid and attendance; or Is a surviving spouse or child of a veteran who is receiving VA benefits and is considered to be permanently disabled.” [USDA, accessed 5/3/12]In 2010, More Than Three Times As Many SNAP Households Worked As Relied Solely On Welfare Benefits For Their Income. “Over the last two decades, large shares of SNAP households have become working households. In 2010 more than three times as many SNAP households worked as relied solely on welfare benefits for their income.” [Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 07/09/12]SNAP Benefits Support Soup Kitchens And Disaster Relief For Events Such As The 2011 Tornadoes And Hurricane Irene. “About $2.5 billion went for other food assistance programs, such as the block grant for food assistance in Puerto Rico and American Samoa, commodity purchases for the Emergency Food Assistance Program (which helps food pantries and soup kitchens across the country), and commodities for the Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations. …States can provide emergency SNAP within a matter of days to help disaster victims purchase food. After the hurricanes of 2005, for example, SNAP provided more than 2 million households with almost $1 billion in food assistance. In 2011, SNAP responded to two major sets of disasters: the spring floods and tornados (primarily in the Southeast and Midwest), and in the fall, Hurricane Irene and Tropical Storm Lee (in the Mid-Atlantic and Northeast.)” [Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 07/09/12]SNAP BENEFITS ARE ONE OF THE FASTEST, MOST EFFECTIVE FORMS OF ECONOMIC STIMULUSCenter On Budget And Policy Priorities: “SNAP Benefits Are One Of The Fastest, Most Effective Forms Of Economic Stimulus Because They Get Money Into The Economy Quickly.” “SNAP also protects the economy as a whole by helping maintain overall demand for food during slow economic periods. In fact, SNAP benefits are one of the fastest, most effective forms of economic stimulus because they get money into the economy quickly. Moody's Analytics estimates that in a weak economy, every $1 increase in SNAP benefits generates $1.71 in economic activity. Similarly, the Congressional Budget Office rated an increase in SNAP benefits as one of the two most cost-effective of all spending and tax options it examined for boosting growth and jobs in a weak economy.” [Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 07/09/12]Every $5 Spent In New SNAP Benefits Yields Up To $9 In New Economic Activity. “Every $5 spent in new SNAP benefits yields up to $9 in new economic activity; every time a family uses SNAP to put food on the table, it benefits the store where the purchase was made, the truck driver who delivered the food, the warehouses that stored it, the plant that processed it, the farmer who produced it.” [White House, October 2011]CONTRASTCatholic Leaders Expressed Support For President Obama’s Policies To Help The Less FortunateWHEN CONGRESS FAILED TO ACT, THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION ANNOUNCED A POLICY CHANGE TO?LIFT THE SHADOW OF DEPORTATION FROM YOUNG PEOPLE BROUGHT TO THIS COUNTRY THROUGH NO FAULT OF THEIR OWN The Obama Administration’s Policy Would Temporarily Protect Undocumented Immigrants From Deportation If They Came To The U.S. Before They Turned 16 And Are Currently Younger Than 30.? “Under the administration plan, illegal immigrants will be immune from deportation if they were brought to the United States before they turned 16 and are younger than 30, have been in the country for at least five continuous years, have no criminal history, graduated from a U.S. high school or earned a GED, or served in the military.” [Associated Press, 6/15/12]Under The Obama Administration’s Policy, Young Undocumented Immigrants Would Be Allowed To Apply For A Two-Year, Renewable Work Permit. “They also can apply for a work permit that will be good for two years with no limits on how many times it can be renewed. The officials who described the plan spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss it in advance of the official announcement. The policy will not lead toward citizenship but will remove the threat of deportation and grant the ability to work legally, leaving eligible immigrants able to remain in the United States for extended periods.” [Associated Press, 6/15/12]THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION HAS ALREADY RECEIVED ABOUT 82,000 APPLICATIONS FOR DEFERRED ACTION FOR CHILDHOOD ARRIVALS9/14/12: The Obama Administration Had Received About 82,000 Applications For Deferred Action For Childhood Arrivals And Notified The First Recipients During That Week.? “Spokesman Peter Boogaard said that as of Friday, U.S. Immigration and Citizenship Services had received about 82,000 applications from illegal immigrants hoping to qualify for the administration's Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program. The first immigrants to win the reprieve were notified this week. They will be allowed to stay in the United States for up to two years and be given permission to work; applications can be renewed every two years. Boogaard said another 1,600 applications are awaiting final review. USCIS started accepting applications for the program on Aug. 15. The first approvals came well ahead of the department's own internal estimates that it could take four to six months for an application, including fingerprints and a background check, to be fully reviewed.” [Associated Press, 9/14/12]CATHOLIC BISHOPS CRITICIZED THE RYAN BUDGET CUTS FOR FAILING THE POORU.S. Conference Of Catholic Bishops: Deficit Reduction “Must Protect And Not Undermine The Needs Of Poor And Vulnerable People” And Therefore The Ryan Budget Cuts “Fail This Basic Moral Test.” “Congress should assess every budget decision by how it reflects the shared responsibility of the government and other institutions to protect human life and dignity, especially of the poor and vulnerable, said the bishop who chairs the Committee on Domestic Justice and Human Development of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) in a May 8 letter to the House of Representatives. ‘The Catholic bishops of the United States recognize the serious deficits our country faces, and we acknowledge that Congress must make difficult decisions about how to allocate burdens and sacrifices and balance resources and needs,’ wrote Bishop Stephen E. Blaire of Stockton, California, as the House prepared to vote on a reconciliation package for the 2013 budget. ‘However, deficit reduction and fiscal responsibility efforts must protect and not undermine the needs of poor and vulnerable people. The proposed cuts to programs in the budget reconciliation fail this basic moral test.’” [U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, 5/8/12]The United States Conference Of Catholic Bishops: Ryan’s Budget “Fails To Meet…Moral Criteria.” “Prior to the House considering the budget resolution, the bishops offered several moral criteria to guide these difficult budget decisions: 1. Every budget decision should be assessed by whether it protects or threatens human life and dignity. 2. A central moral measure of any budget proposal is how it affects “the least of these” (Matthew 25). The needs of those who are hungry and homeless, without work or in poverty should come first. 3. Government and other institutions have a shared responsibility to promote the common good of all, especially ordinary workers and families who struggle to live in dignity in difficult economic times. … The House-passed budget resolution fails to meet these moral criteria.” [United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, letter to Reps. Frank Lucas And Collin Peterson, 4/16/12]…AS DID HOSPITAL AND HEALTH ASSOCIATIONSAmerican Hospital Association Said Ryan’s Budget Would “Severely Impact Access To Care For Our Most Vulnerable Patients.” “However, today's budget proposal by the House will severely impact access to care for our most vulnerable patients.? While we recognize the serious fiscal challenges we face as a nation, this budget is not the right prescription for the health of America.” [American Hospital Association press release, 4/5/11]Catholic Health Association President Said Ryan Budget Was “Road Map To Ruin.” “While it is important to control federal spending and the deficit, cuts proposed by the House budget resolution would damage the nation's health care system by decimating Medicaid, Medicare and recent coverage gains made possible by the Affordable Care Act. Rather than a ‘path to prosperity’, the budget resolution is a road map to ruin for these vital safety net programs and the future health of our nation.” [Catholic Health Association press release,4/5/11]ATTACKRomney Would Raise Taxes On Working Families And Take Away Crucial Safety NetsROMNEY: “I’M NOT CONCERNED ABOUT THE VERY POOR”?Romney: “I’m Not Concerned About The Very Poor. We Have A Safety Net There.” Romney: “I believe I will be able to instill that confidence in American people. And by the way, I’m in this race because I care about Americans. I’m not concerned about the very poor. We have a safety net there. If it needs repair, I'll fix it. I'm not concerned about the very rich, they're doing just fine. I'm concerned about the very heart of America, the 90%, 95% of Americans who right now are struggling and I'll continue to take that message across the nation.” [Starting Point, CNN, 2/1/12]ROMNEY WOULD LET TAX BENEFITS HELPING THE MIDDLE CLASS EXPIRE, WHICH WOULD INCREASE TAXES FOR AT LEAST 18 MILLION AMERICANSRomney’s Plan Would Allow Tax Provision In The 2009 Recovery Act To Expire, Including The “American Opportunity Tax Credit For Higher Education, The Expanded Refundability Of The Child Credit, And The Expansion Of The EITC.” “Tax provisions in the 2009 stimulus act and subsequently extended through 2012 would expire. These include the American Opportunity tax credit for higher education, the expanded refundability of the child credit, and the expansion of the earned income tax credit (EITC).” [Tax Policy Center, The Romney Plan (updated), 3/1/12]Politifact: Romney Plan To Let Recovery Act Tax Credits Expire Would Raise Taxes On 18 Million Working Families. “Obama claimed Romney’s plan would cut his own taxes while raising them on 18 million working families. The Tax Policy Center found that, indeed, even with a 20 percent rate cut, 18 million people would find themselves in a gap where the rate cut wouldn’t offset the loss of benefits from the Obama tax cuts Romney would let expire. That is, they’d end up paying more (or getting less in refunds) without the expanded child credit, EITC and education credit. Romney has not explicitly said he wants those tax cuts to end, but his lack of support for extending them means there would be an increase on the 18 million people. Obama's statement is accurate but needs additional information. We rate it Mostly True.” [Politifact, 5/8/12]Many Of The Recovery Act Tax Cuts And Credits “Primarily Benefit The Broad Middle Class” And “The Largest Gains, Measured As A Percentage Of After-Tax Income, Go To The Poorest Tax Units.” “The individual tax provisions in ARRA will reduce taxes for households at all income levels. The child tax credit and EITC provisions focus tax cuts on low income tax units, extending the alternative minimum tax patch substantially lowers taxes for wealthy households, and other provisions primarily benefit the broad middle class. The largest gains, measured as a percentage of after-tax income, go to the poorest tax units: average after-tax income will climb 4.6 percent for those in the bottom quintile. In contrast, taxes will fall much less for the top quintile of tax units, whose average after-tax income will rise only 1.5 percent.” [Tax Policy Center, 5/5/09]The Earned Income Tax Credit And Child Tax Credit “Disproportionately Benefit Women And Working Families.” [White House Analysis, The Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of 2010: Win for Women, Mothers and Working Families, accessed 4/12/12]The Expanded EITC “Expanded Marriage Penalty Relief In The EITC, Reducing The Financial Penalty Some Couples Receive When They Marry By Allowing Married Couples To Receive Larger Benefits.” [Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 2/22/12]ROMNEY AND RYAN WOULD REPEAL OBAMACARE, TAKING SUBSIDIZED HEALTH INSURANCE AWAY FROM 30 MILLION PEOPLERomney: “If I’m President, I Will Repeal Obamacare, And I’ll Kill It Dead On Its First Day.” [Romney town hall, Collinsville, IL, 3/17/12]2013 Ryan Budget Repealed Health Care Reform Bill. Here’s a review of the 32 votes taken since January 2011. Note that the vote count, provided by the office of the House Majority Whip, includes votes on final passage of bills and the passage of certain amendments related to the health-care law: … 28.) March 29, 2012: The Fiscal 2013 Federal Budget: This spending proposal also repealed and defunded the health law.” [, 7/11/12]The Affordable Care Act Will Enable An Additional 30 Million People To Gain Insurance. “CBO and JCT now estimate that the ACA, in comparison with prior law before the enactment of the ACA, will reduce the number of nonelderly people without health insurance coverage by 14 million in 2014 and by 29 million or 30 million in the latter part of the coming decade.” [Congressional Budget Office, 7/24/12]THE ROMNEY-RYAN BUDGET COULD SLASH FUNDING FOR FOOD STAMPSBoston Globe: “The Ryan Budget Would Slash Food Stamps By $134 Billion Over 10 Years, Affecting 47 Million Recipients.”? “Some details, however, have been released. The Ryan budget would slash food stamps by $134 billion over 10 years, affecting 47 million recipients, including 857,000 in Massachusetts. A typical family of four could lose about $90 a month in food stamps, according to the budget policy center.”? [Boston Globe, 8/14/12] Washington Post’s Ezra Klein: “Ryan’s Budget Cuts $134 Billion From Food Stamps, Which Is Enough To Kick 8-10 Million People Off The Program.” [Ezra Klein, Washington Post, 8/22/12]SMALL BUSINESSPRO-POTUSPresident Obama Has Supported Small BusinessesPRESIDENT OBAMA HAS CUT TAXES FOR SMALL BUSINESS, MADE IT EASIER FOR SMALL BUSINESS TO GET LOANS, AND MADE IT EASIER FOR GROWING BUSINESSES TO GO PUBLIC AND GET FINANCINGPresident Obama Has Signed 18 Tax Cuts To Support Small Business Growth. “To date, the President has supported 18 direct tax breaks that bolster small business growth. In September 2010, he signed the Small Business Jobs Act, which included eight new small business tax cuts that, among other forms of tax relief, extended accelerated bonus depreciation for two million businesses, making investment and growth more affordable; made investments in one million small firms eligible for zero capital gains taxes; and allowed two million self-employed Americans to deduct their health insurance costs when calculating their self-employment taxes.” [White House National Economic Council, May 2012]President Obama Fought For And Signed The VOW to Hire Heroes Act To Provided Tax Credits Of Up To $9,600 To Companies That Hire Unemployed And Wounded Veterans. “President Obama signed legislation Monday that provides significant tax credits to businesses that hire unemployed and disabled veterans, the only measure in the president’s larger jobs proposal to receive any bipartisan support…The new legislation will allow employers tax credits of up to $5,600 for hiring veterans who have been unemployed longer than six months. It will also give employers a tax credit of up to $9,600 for hiring long-unemployed disabled veterans.” [CNN, 11/21/11]??President Obama Signed The Small Business Jobs Act, Which Extended Expansions Of Loan Guarantees, Increased Loan Limits, And Expanded The Number Of Small Businesses Eligible For SBA Loans. “SBA loan provisions, with the 90% guarantee and reduced fees, were extended through 2010. The $505 million in subsidy for Jobs Act loans supported more than $12 billion in overall small business lending…The law permanently increased 7(a) and 504 limits from $2 million to $5 million (for manufacturers in 504 loan program, up to $5.5 million)… The law expanded the number of small businesses eligible for SBA loans by increasing the alternate size standard to those with less than $15 million in net worth and $5 million in average net income.” [Small Business Administration, accessed 5/22/12]President Obama Signed The JOBS Act, Which Will Help Growing Business Access Financing, Promoting American Entrepreneurship And Innovation. “The?JOBS Act?is a product of bipartisan cooperation, with the President and Congress working together to promote American entrepreneurship and innovation while maintaining important protections for American investors.? It will help growing businesses access financing while maintaining investor protections…” [White House Press Release, 4/5/2012]Business Start-Up Creation Was Up 25,000 In The Fourth Quarter Of 2011 Compared With The First Quarter Of 2009. According to Bureau of Labor Statistics Business Employment Dynamics data, the number of private sector establishment births in the first quarter of 2012 was 172,000. The number of private sector establishment births in the fourth quarter of 2011, the most recent data available, was 197,000. [Business Employment Dynamics, Bureau Of Labor Statistics, 8/2/12]President Obama Proposed A 10 Percent Income Tax Credit For Hiring New Employees Or Raising The Salaries Of Existing Employees And Proposed Extending 100 Percent Expensing In 2012 For All Businesses. “The president called for passage of proposed legislation that would provide a 10 percent income tax credit for firms that create new jobs or increase wages in 2012 and extends 100 percent expensing in 2012 for all businesses.” [RTT News, 5/16/12]During The Recession, Small Businesses Lacked Access To CapitalSMALL BUSINESSES FOUND IT HARDER TO GET CAPITAL, LOANS AND MAKE PAYROLL AS A RESULT OF THE ECONOMIC COLLAPSE IN 2008“When Credit Markets Froze During The Height Of The Financial Crisis In 2008, Small Businesses Felt The Combined Effects Of Diminished Access To Capital And Falling Sales.” [White House National Economic Council, May 2012]National Federation Of Independent Business: “Because Of The Slowdown In The Economy, The Credit Worthiness Of Many Potential Borrowers Has Deteriorated Over The Last Year, Leading To More Difficult Terms And Higher Loan Rejection Rates.” “Because of the slowdown in the economy, the credit worthiness of many potential borrowers has deteriorated over the last year, leading to more difficult terms and higher loan rejection rates (even with no change in lending standards). Thirty-two (32) percent reported all their borrowing needs met (down one point) compared to 8 percent who reported problems obtaining desired financing (unchanged; data are not seasonally adjusted). The net percent reporting all borrowing needs satisfied fell a point to 24 percent (the low for the series is 22 percent, reached in 1993 when the question was first asked). [NFIB Small Business Trends, March 2009]In March 2009, The National Federal Of Independent Business Index Of Small Business Optimism Was Just One Point Above The Lowest Reading In The 35 Year History Of The Survey. “The Index of Small Business Optimism fell 1.6 points in March to 81.0 (1986=100), still the second lowest reading in the 35 year history of the NFIB survey (80.1 is the low, reached in 1980Q2). Two of the Index components improved and 8 declined.” [National Federation Of Independent Business, April 2009]Small Businesses Are Better Off Than When President Obama Took OfficeUNDER PRESIDENT OBAMA’S LEADERSHIP, BUSINESS START-UP CREATION HAS INCREASED, SMALL BUSINESS LENDING HAS RISEN, AND SMALL BUSINESSES HAVE ADDED MORE THAN 2 MILLION JOBS IN THE LAST 31 MONTHSBusiness Start-Up Creation Was Up 25,000 In The Fourth Quarter Of 2011 Compared With The First Quarter Of 2009. According to Bureau of Labor Statistics Business Employment Dynamics data, the number of private sector establishment births in the first quarter of 2012 was 172,000. The number of private sector establishment births in the fourth quarter of 2011, the most recent data available, was 197,000. [Business Employment Dynamics, Bureau Of Labor Statistics, 8/2/12]According To The Thompson Reuters/PayNet Small Business Lending Index, Small Business Lending Was Up 33 Percent In August 2012 Compared To January 2009. The Thompson Reuters/PayNet Small Business Lending Index increased from 82.1 in January 2009 to 109.9 in August 2012, a 33 percent increase. [Thompson Reuters/PayNet Small Business Lending Index historical data, accessed 10/13/12]Businesses With Less Than 50 Employees Have Added More Than 2 Million Jobs In The Last 31 Months. According to ADP data, businesses with less than 50 employees employed 48,039,000 people in February 2010, and employed 50,059,000 people in September 2012, adding 2,020,000 employees over the 31 month period. [ADP September 2012 Small Business Report, accessed 10/15/12] Pushback: President Obama Has Been Bad For BusinessesUNDER PRESIDENT OBAMA, BUSINESS TAXES ARE LOW, CORPORATE PROFITS ARE HIGH, AND INVESTMENT IS UP SINCE 2009PRESIDENT OBAMA HAS SAID THE PRIVATE SECTOR IS THE “TRUE ENGINE OF JOB CREATION IN OUR ECONOMY” AND THAT GETTING AMERICANS BACK TO WORK IS HIS NUMBER ONE PRIORITYPresident Obama Said, “The Free Market Is The Greatest Force For Economic Progress In Human History.” “I believe deeply that the free market is the greatest force for economic progress in human history.” [President Obama, Remarks by the President at the Associated Press Luncheon, 4/3/12]President Obama: The Private Sector Is “The True Engine Of Job Creation In Our Economy.” “But what we can do is promote a strong, dynamic private sector -- the true engine of job creation in our economy.? We can help to provide an impetus for America’s businesses to start hiring again.? We can nurture the conditions that allow companies to succeed and to grow.” [Remarks By The President, 3/18/2010]UNDER PRESIDENT OBAMA, CORPORATE TAXES ARE AT ALL-TIME LOWS, CORPORATE PROFITS ARE NEAR ALL TIME HIGHS, BUSINESS INVESTMENT IS UP AND THE STOCK MARKET IS THRIVINGThe Washington Post’s Ezra Klein: Corporate Taxes Are At All-Time Lows And Corporate Profits Are Near All-Time Highs. “If there’s been serious distress from these policies, it’s been hard to detect in corporate bottom lines. After taxes, corporate profits amounted to 6.9 percent of GDP in 2010 — their highest level since 1966… And it speaks to the underlying reality of this recovery: Corporate taxes are near all-time lows and corporate profits are near all-time highs. That’s a mighty odd outcome for an administration that supposedly sees the existence of private businesses as an unpleasant side effect of the government’s need for tax revenues, don’t you think?” [Ezra Klein, Washington Post, 6/11/12]Washington Post’s Ezra Klein: Under President Obama, Taxes On Business Have Averaged A Lower Share Of GDP Than The Average Share Of GDP Since 1950. “Since 1950, corporate tax receipts have averaged 2.7 percent of GDP. In the Obama years, they’ve averaged 1.16 percent of GDP. Some of that, of course, is a consequence of the recession. But some of it is a consequence of policies the Obama administration has proposed and passed. The original stimulus included billions in tax cuts for businesses, including allowing businesses to write off 50 percent of the cost of any depreciable capital purchases — think tractors and wind turbines — they made in 2009. In 2010, the Obama administration upped that to 100 percent…Going forward, the Obama administration’s budget envisions corporate tax receipts rebounding to about 2.4 percent of GDP — again, beneath their historical average.” [Ezra Klein, Washington Post, 6/11/12]Real Business Fixed Investment Is Up More Than 18Percent Since The End Of 2009. According to Bureau of Economic Analysis data, real business fixed investment has grown by 18percent, from $1556.8 billion in the fourth quarter of 2009 to $1840.6billion in the second quarter of 2012. [Bureau Of Economic Analysis, NIPA Table 1.1.6, accessed 9/20/12]For Stock Investors, President Obama Has Been “One Of The Best Presidents Since World War Two.” “Barack Obama often gets slammed for his stewardship of the U.S. economy, but for stock investors, he's been one of the best presidents since World War Two. At 1,400, the S&P 500 on Friday was closing in on a four-year high and was up 74 percent since January 20, 2009, the day Obama took office. Not since Dwight Eisenhower's first term has a president had such a strong run for their first term.” [Reuters, 8/10/12]Pushback: EPA Regulations Are An Undue Burden On BusinessesINDUSTRY AND BUSINESS LEADERS HAVE ARGUED THAT EPA RULES ARE NOT JOB KILLERSThe Clean Energy Group, A Coalition Of Electric Power Companies, Opposed Congressional Efforts To Block Implementation Of The Mercury And Air Toxics Rule, Arguing That Doing So Would Create “Significant Business Uncertainty.” “The Clean Energy Group’s Clean Air Policy Initiative does not support the use of the Congressional Review Act resolution of disapproval, S.J. Res. 37, to block implementation of EPA’s final Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS) for power plants. Since 2000, the electric industry has been anticipating that EPA would regulate hazardous air pollutant emissions, and the MATS rule is consistent with the requirements of the Clean Air Act. S.J. Res. 37 would prevent EPA from implementing these standards and in doing so, create significant business uncertainty, undermining the investments already made and the planning underway by many in the electric sector to date.” [The Clean Energy Group, accessed 6/19/12]11 of The 15 Largest Coal Fleet Owners “Have Indicated That They Are Well-Positioned To Comply With EPA Rules” “A recent report from M.J. Bradley and Associates and the Analysis Group shows that 11 of the top 15 largest coal fleet owners in the U.S., representing half of the nation's coal capacity, have indicated that they are well-positioned to comply with the rules.” [Letter to the Editor, Wall Street Journal, 12/10/11]John Arensmeyer, Founder And CEO Of The Small Business Majority: “Fact Check: EPA Regulations Are Not Small Business's Kryptonite.” From a column by the Founder and CEO of the Small Business Majority, John Arensmeyer titled “Fact Check: EPA Regulations Are Not Small Business's Kryptonite”: “In one of the latest attempts to harness the influence of small business -- a coveted pawn in political chess games -- former Senator Blanche Lincoln decried government regulation as the biggest impediment to small business and economic recovery in a Huffington Post blog entry. She pointed to Environmental Protection Agency regulations specifically. But let's get the facts straight. Small business owners actually support an array of recently proposed EPA regulations. And by wide margins, too. Small Business Majority's most recent polling, released on June 7, found the vast majority of small businesses in Ohio -- a major manufacturing state -- support EPA clean air standards, and two-thirds of those polled also feel government investments in clean energy can stimulate the economy and create jobs now.” [John Arensmeyer, Huffington Post, 6/11/12]EPA REGULATIONS WILL SAVE THOUSANDS OF LIVES EACH YEAR WITH MINIMAL IMPACT ON THE ECONOMYPRESIDENT OBAMA BELIEVES THAT THE NOTION THAT WE MUST CHOOSE BETWEEN PROTECTING OUR ENVIRONMENT AND GROWING OUR ECONOMY IS A “FALSE CHOICE” AND OPPOSES EFFORTS TO ROLL BACK ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIONSPresident Obama: “There Will Always Be People In This Country Who Say We’ve Got To Choose Between Clean Air And Clean Water And A Growing Economy … That Is A False Choice.” In remarks to the 2012 White House Conservation Conference, President Obama said: “The bottom line is this: There will always be people in this country who say we’ve got to choose between clean air and clean water and a growing economy, between doing right by our environment and putting people back to work. And I’m here to tell you that is a false choice. (Applause.) That is a false choice. (Applause.) With smart, sustainable policies, we can grow our economy today and protect our environment for ourselves and our children.” [Remarks by the President at Conservation Conference, 3/2/12]President Obama Said That He “Reject[s] The Argument That Says For The Economy To Grow, We Have To Roll Back … Rules That Keep Our Kids From Being Exposed To Mercury.” “I reject the idea that we need to ask people to choose between their jobs and their safety. I reject the argument that says for the economy to grow, we have to roll back protections that ban hidden fees by credit card companies, or rules that keep our kids from being exposed to mercury, or laws that prevent the health insurance industry from shortchanging patients.” [Address by the President to a Joint Session of Congress, 9/8/11]EPA REGULATIONS SAVE THOUSANDS OF LIVES EACH YEARBy 2016, EPA’s Mercury And Air Toxics Standards Will Prevent Up To 11,000 Premature Deaths And 4,700 Heart Attacks Each Year. From an EPA fact sheet on the final Mercury and Air Toxics rule: “In 2016, these rules would avoid: 4,200 to 11,000 premature deaths.” [Environmental Protection Agency, accessed 12/21/11]The Clean Air Act Saved 160,000 American Lives In 2010. “Passed in 1970 by Congress, the Act has succeeded in enabling the U.S. to cut emissions of the six most widespread air pollutants by 60 percent since then, all while the economy grew by over 200 percent, according to?EPA’s analysis. In 2010 alone, the Clean Air Act’s public health protections saved the lives of over 160,000 people, according to?EPA’s preliminary?estimates.” [American Lung Association, accessed 8/8/11]CLEAN AIR STANDARDS ISSUED BY THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION WILL CREATE JOBS AS THE UTILITY INDUSTRY ACHIEVES COMPLIANCEThe Environmental Protection Agency Estimates That Manufacturing, Installing, And Maintaining Pollution Controls Associated With The Mercury And Air Toxics Rule Is Expected To Provide 46,000 Construction Jobs And 8,000 Long-Term Utility Jobs. From an EPA press release about the Mercury and Air Toxics rule: “EPA estimates that manufacturing, engineering, installing and maintaining the pollution controls to meet these standards will provide employment for thousands, potentially including 46,000 short-term construction jobs and 8,000 long-term utility jobs.” [Environmental Protection Agency, 12/21/11]The Environmental Protection Agency Estimates That Cement Regulations Could Add Up To 1,300 Jobs Overall, Boosting Employment In Industries That Make Cleaner Equipment. “The cement industry is currently warning that as many as 18 of the 100 cement plants currently operating in the United States could close down because of proposed stricter standards for sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide emissions, resulting in the direct loss of 13,000 jobs. An E.P.A. analysis of the proposed rules projects a much smaller effect, ranging from as few as 600 jobs lost to 1,300 jobs actually added in companies that make cleaner equipment.” [New York Times, 9/5/11]The Environmental Protection Agency Estimates The Net Monetized Benefits Of Cement Kiln Regulations Would Range From $6.7 To $17 Billion, Exceeding The Costs “By A Significant Margin Even When Taking Into Account The Uncertainties In The Cost And Benefit Estimates.” “The social costs of this rulemaking are estimated at $880 million (2005$) in the year of full implementation, and the benefits are estimated at $7.4 billion to $18 billion (2005$, 3 percent discount rate) for that same year. The benefits at a 7 percent discount rate are $6.7 billion to $16 billion (2005$). Thus, net benefits of this rulemaking are estimated at $6.5 billion to $17 billion (2005$, 3 percent discount rate). … EPA believes that the benefits are likely to exceed the costs by a significant margin even when taking into account the uncertainties in the cost and benefit estimates.” [Environmental Protection Agency, 9/9/10, pg. 55028]THE UNITED STATES IS THE WORLD’S LARGEST PRODUCER OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION TECHNOLOGIESAccording To The Department Of Commerce, The Environmental Technologies Sector Supports Close To 1.7 Million Jobs In The United States And $43.8 Billion In Exports. “In the United States, approximately 119,000 enterprises are engaged in the ET business. The U.S. ET industry generates approximately $300 billion in revenues, $43.8 billion in exports, and supports close to 1.7 million jobs.” [U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Energy and Environmental Industries, accessed 3/24/12]According To The Department Of Commerce, The United States Is The World’s Largest Producer And Consumer Of Environmental Protection Technologies. “The U.S. is the world’s largest producer and consumer of environmental technologies worldwide.” [U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Energy and Environmental Industries, accessed 3/24/12]?THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY ISSUED A REGULATORY REVIEW PLAN TO ELIMINATE UNJUSTIFIED BURDENS ON INDUSTRYEPA Issued A Regulatory Review Plan To Review Dozens Of Regulations In Order To Eliminate “Unjustified Burdens” On Industry. From the Environmental Protection Agency’s Final Plan for Periodic Retrospective Reviews of Existing Regulation: “During our 40-year history, EPA and our federal, state, local, tribal, and community partners have made enormous progress in protecting the Nation’s health and environment through EPA’s regulatory and stewardship programs. However, just as today’s economy is vastly different from that of 40 years before, EPA’s regulatory program is evolving to recognize the progress that has already been made in environmental protection and to incorporate new technologies and approaches that allow us to accomplish our mission more efficiently and effectively. A central goal, consistent with Executive Order 13563, is to identify methods for reducing unjustified burdens and costs.” [Environmental Protection Agency, Final Plan for Periodic Retrospective Reviews of Existing Regulation, August 2011, pg. 5]The EPA Has Already Finalized Or Proposed Regulatory Reforms That Are Expected To Save Up To $1.5 Billion Over The Next Five Years. From the Environmental Protection Agency’s Final Plan for Periodic Retrospective Reviews of Existing Regulation: “The current Plan describes a large number of burden-reducing, cost-saving reforms, including 35 priority initiatives. Some of these have recently been completed; others are in process; still others are in their earliest stages. The potential economic savings are significant. For example, a recent final rule exempts milk producers from regulations designed to protect against oil spills; that rule will save $145 million - $148 million annually. A recently proposed rule would eliminate redundant air pollution control requirements now imposed on gas stations; that rule would save $87 million annually. Taken as a whole, recent reforms, already finalized or formally proposed, are anticiapted [sic] to save up to $1.5 billion over the next five years. Other reforms described here, including efforts to streamline requirements and to move to electronic reporting, could save more.” [Environmental Protection Agency, Final Plan for Periodic Retrospective Reviews of Existing Regulation, August 2011, pg. 5]President Obama Will Invest In Skilled WorkersPRESIDENT OBAMA WILL INVEST IN EDUCATION AND TRAINING SO SMALL BUSINESSES CAN FIND THE WORKERS THEY NEEDHalf Of U.S. Employers Said They Could Not Find Workers To Fill Positions. “Even with almost 13 million Americans?looking?for work and 8 million more settling for part-time jobs, almost half the 1,361 U.S. employers surveyed in January by ManpowerGroup say they can’t find workers to fill positions. At the same time, American employers are less likely than their counterparts overseas to invest in training, the Milwaukee-based staffing company reported last month. Companies have reported more than 3 million job?openings every month since February 2011, according to the Department of Labor. To narrow the skills gap, employers are teaming up with philanthropies, governments and community colleges to develop a ready resource: their existing workforce. The practice, known as upskilling, builds on the “up from the mailroom” idea, the management philosophy that the best person for a job could be one a company already has.” [Bloomberg, 7/25/12]President Obama Proposed A Community College To Career Fund, Which Would Establish Partnerships Between Schools And Employers And Train 2 Million People For High-Demand, Skilled Careers. “The Obama administration will propose an $8 billion, three-year plan for shoring up career programs at community colleges to help train 2 million people for the workforce. The plan, to be administered by the Education and Labor departments, designates funds in the 2013 budget to establish training courses for skilled careers, develop partnerships between the schools and employers, and help state and local governments attract businesses, according to an Education Department statement. Shrinking state budgets and increasing numbers of unemployed people in the wake of the recession that began in 2007 have strained community colleges. The funding would help colleges accommodate more students in need of job skills, said David Baime of the?American Association?of Community Colleges in?Washington... The program, called the Community College to Career Fund, will pay to expand training and certification programs at community colleges for growing employment fields.” [Bloomberg, 2/13/2012]The President Proposed Making Permanent The American Opportunity Tax Credit Which Provides Benefits Of Up To $10,000 Over Four Years For 9 Million Middle-Class Families. “Making permanent the American Opportunity Tax Credit—which provides benefits of up to $10,000 over four years for 9 million middle-class families.” [Department of Education, accessed 09/22/12]The President’s Budget Will Continue Investments In Title I, IDEA And Pell Grants And To Existing Reform Efforts Like Race To The Top. “These investments will ensure that continuing investments in foundational programs like Title I, IDEA and Pell Grants are able to serve students and schools well. The Department's fiscal year 2013 budget also continues commitments to existing reform efforts like Race to the Top.” [Department of Education, 02/13/12]Pushback: President Obama Has Increased The Regulatory Burden On Small BusinessesPRESIDENT OBAMA HAS TAKEN CONCRETE STEPS TO ELIMINATE REGULATIONS THAT ARE INEFFECTIVE OR BURDENSOMEPresident Obama Signed An Executive Order Requiring Agencies To Develop Regulatory Lookback Tools To Eliminate Regulations That Are Ineffective Or Burdensome. “Our regulatory system must protect public health, welfare, safety, and our environment while promoting economic growth, innovation, competitiveness, and job creation. It must be based on the best available science. It must allow for public participation and an open exchange of ideas. It must promote predictability and reduce uncertainty. It must identify and use the best, most innovative, and least burdensome tools for achieving regulatory ends. It must take into account benefits and costs, both quantitative and qualitative. It must ensure that regulations are accessible, consistent, written in plain language, and easy to understand. It must measure, and seek to improve, the actual results of regulatory requirements.” [Executive Order 13563, 1/21/11]President Obama Initiated An Overhaul Of The Federal Regulatory System Resulting In More Than 580 Regulatory Reform Proposals - A Fraction Of Which Will Save $10 Billion In The Next Five Years And Eliminate Tens Of Millions Of Hours Of Paperwork Requirements, With Far Greater Savings To Come.? “Part of the answer lies in the reduction of regulatory costs. President Obama has created an unprecedented government-wide regulatory ‘lookback,’ designed to revisit rules on the books to see if they really make sense. Government agencies have identified over 580 reform proposals and already acted on over 100 of them. Just a very small fraction of those reforms, already finalized or proposed to the public, will save over $10 billion over the next five years and eliminate tens of millions of hours of paperwork requirements. This is just a beginning. As the reforms continue, we expect to be able to produce far greater savings.” [Office of Management and Budget OMBlog Post By OIRA Chief Cass Sunstein, 8/7/12]President Obama Issued A Memorandum Directing Agencies To Not Place Unjustified Burdens On Small Business Owners. “Accordingly, I hereby direct executive departments and agencies and request independent agencies, when initiating rulemaking that will have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, to give serious consideration to whether and how it is appropriate, consistent with law and regulatory objectives, to reduce regulatory burdens on small businesses, through increased flexibility. … Adherence to these requirements is designed to ensure that regulatory actions do not place unjustified economic burdens on small business owners and other small entities.” [Presidential Memorandum, 1/18/11]President Obama Approved Roughly 5 Percent Fewer Regulations During The First Three Years In Office Than Did His Predecessor, George W. Bush. “A top White House official Tuesday defended the administration against charges that it’s trigger-happy with regulations, saying that fewer final regs have been issued under President Barack Obama than during the same period under George W. Bush…The White House later provided data to POLITICO that 931 final rules were reviewed by the White House and issued by executive agencies under Bush - and 886 under Obama.” [Politico, 3/20/12]ROMNEY REFERENCED A STUDY THAT DOES NOT COVER THE TIME PRESIDENT OBAMA HAS BEEN IN OFFICEThe 2010 SBA Report On Regulatory Costs Only Studied Regulatory Burdens In 2008. “The findings in this report indicate that in 2008, U.S. federal government regulations cost an estimated $1.75 trillion, an amount equal to 14 percent of U.S. national income. When combined with U.S. federal tax receipts, which equaled 21 percent of national income in 2008, these two costs of federal government programs in 2008 consumed 35 percent of national income. This obviously represents a substantial burden on U.S. citizens and businesses.” [SBA Advocacy Report On Regulations, 9/20/10]AN INDEPENDENT GOVERNMENT WATCHDOG DISPUTED THE CLAIM THAT THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION UNLEASHED A REGULATORY “TSUNAMI”Government Watchdog OMB Watch: “Has The Obama Administration Unleashed A Regulatory ‘Tsunami’ As House And Senate Republicans Charge? … Hard Research Shows The Answer Is An Unambiguous No.” “Has the Obama administration unleashed a regulatory ‘tsunami’ as House and Senate Republicans charge? Has this administration issued more significant final rules than past administrations? Contrary to the rhetoric of the business community and its allies on Capitol Hill, hard research shows the answer is an unambiguous no.” [OMB Watch Blog Post, 7/10/12]OMB Watch Director Of Regulatory Policy Randy Rabinowitz: “This Notion That There’s Been This Huge Upsurge Is Just Fantasy.” “At the very least, they say, the trend refutes charges that Obama has greatly increased the pace of government regulation. ‘This notion that there's been this huge upsurge is just a fantasy,’ says Randy Rabinowitz, director of regulatory policy at the government watchdog group OMB Watch. ‘This year, it drops considerably.’” [USA Today, 7/26/12]Romney Inaccurately Claims That Businesses Affected By Ending The High-Income Tax Rates Employ Half Of AmericansROMNEY INNACURATELY CLAIMS THAT BUSINESSES AFFECTED BY ENDING THE HIGH-INCOME TAX RATES EMPLOY HALF OF AMERICANSNew York Times: Romney’s Claim That Ending The High-Income Bush Tax Cuts Would Affect Companies Employing Half Of the People Who Work AT Small Businesses Is “Not Accurate.” “As for Mr. Romney’s suggestion that the tax increase will affect companies employing half of the people who work at small businesses, that also is not accurate. In 2007, according to the Census data, companies with 20 to 299 employees employed 55 percent of the total work force at companies with fewer than 500 workers, a common definition for a small business. But given the N.F.I.B. survey’s finding that only 22 percent of businesses in roughly that size range would actually face a tax increase, those businesses’ share of the small-business work force would be only about 12 percent.” [New York Times, 10/11/12]New York Times: The Survey At The Root Of This Claim Suggests That A Far Smaller Percentage Of The Workforce Would Would Be Affected Than Romney Claimed.“In fact, the survey (pdf) at the root of the claim suggests the opposite — that a minority of these businesses in this size category, about 22 percent of them, earned more than $250,000 in business income, the threshold for higher taxes under the Obama plan. According to the Census Bureau figures that the N.F.I.B. relied on (available from the?S.B.A.), in 2007, when the N.F.I.B. poll was taken, businesses with 20 to 299 employees employed almost 28 percent of the total work force. Assuming that the N.F.I.B. survey results can be extrapolated to the broader small-business population*, 22 percent of 28 percent is 6 percent. That means that, according to the N.F.I.B. survey, the share of the total work force that might be affected by the increase in tax rates is around 6 percent, not 25 percent.” [New York Times, 10/11/12]The Romney Campaign Declined To Discuss Its Source, It Echoes A Figure The NFIB Circulated By When The Advocacy Group Sent A?Letter?To Congress Two Years Ago Opposing Any Tax Increases, Including On The Wealthy . “Let’s look at the share of employment first, Mr. Romney’s charge that letting the Bush tax cuts expire for the top two tax brackets will specifically hit businesses that employ half of all the people who work in small businesses and a quarter of all American workers. The Romney campaign declined to discuss its source, but the assertion closely echoes a figure circulated by the N.F.I.B., when the advocacy group sent a?letter?to Congress two years ago opposing any tax increases, including on the wealthy.” [New York Times, 10/11/12]Washington Post Wonkblog: Romney’s Claim That Businesses with High-Earning Owners Employ Half Of All Small Business Workers “Very Seriously Mischaracterized The Population To Which This Number Refers.” “What about Romney’s claim that businesses with high-earning owners employ more people — 54 percent, by his estimate? This figure comes from?Robert Carroll and Gerald Prante?at the accounting firm Ernst and Young. But this figure includes all income to “flow-through corporations” — that is, corporations whose profits are passed along to owners and taxed at normal income tax rates. It thus includes flow-through corporations whose owners pay high rates (such as highly profitable software companies), as well as those that pay much lower rates (such as someone with a part-time freelance consulting businesses). Romney very seriously mischaracterized the population to which this number refers..” [Wonkblog, Washington Post, 10/4/12]Romney Uses Flawed Study To Argue That The President’s Tax Plan Would Cost 700,000 JobsTHE ERNST AND YOUNG STUDY WAS FUNDED BY GROUPS THAT HAVE A RECORD OF OPPOSING THE PRESIDENT’S POLICIES AND IS HIGHLY FLAWEDTHE STUDY WAS FUNDED BY GROUPS THAT HAVE A RECORD OF SUPPORTING REPUBLICANS AND BIG BUSINESSThe Ernst And Young Study Was Prepared On Behalf Of Groups Including The National Federation Of Independent Business And The United States Chamber Of Commerce.[Ernst & Young, July 2012]The National Federation Of Independent Business Is Listed As A “Top All-Time Donor” Over 1989-2012 On , Having Made 93 Percent Of Its Contributions To Republicans. [, accessed 10/4/12]The National Federation Of Independent Business Spent Over A Million Dollars On Republicans In 2010. The National Federation of Independent Business spent $1,146,474 on outside ads in 2010. All of that spending was in support of Republican candidates. [Center for Responsive Politics, accessed 7/18/12]Crossroads GPS Gave $3.7 Million To National Federation Of Independent Business In 2010. [Crossroads GPS, 990 IRS Tax Form, Accessed 4/19/12]National Federation Of Independent Business’s Lisa Goeas: “Crossroads GPS Saw A Good Partner In NFIB.” “Lisa Goeas, an executive at the National Federation of Independent Business, which accepted $3.7 million from GPS in 2010, told POLITICO that ‘Crossroads GPS saw a good partner in NFIB because of the work that we do and provided an unrestricted grant to help NFIB amplify our voice on issues long established as important to our membership.’” [Politico, 4/18/12]The U.S. Chamber Of Commerce Planned To Raise $100 Million For The 2012 Election, Focusing On Congressional Races In What They Called “The First Insurance Policy” If Obama Gets Re-Elected. “The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has a goal of $100 million, according to outsiders familiar with the plans. All of that will be focused on congressional races, with the House as the top priority – what organizers call ‘the first insurance policy’ if Obama were to get reelected. But the Chamber’s message, which includes attacks on Obama’s health-care plan, can be expected to help Romney in several states with competitive Senate races that are also presidential battlegrounds – Florida, Ohio, Virginia, New Mexico, Nevada and Wisconsin.” [Politico, 5/30/12]THE AUTHORS OF THE ERNST AND YOUNG REPORT ARE ESTABLISHED CONSERVATIVE ECONOMISTS AND RELY ON THE WORK OF REPUBLICAN AFFILIATED ECONOMISTS New York Times: “The Authors Of The Ernst & Young Report Are Established Conservative Economists And The Paper Relies Heavily On The Work Of Other Republican-Affiliated Economists.” [New York Times, 10/11/12]New York Times: The Ernst And Young Study “Is Not An Empirical Study, Using Real-World Data,” But Instead Makes Predictions “Based On The Authors’ Assumptions About The Relationship Between Taxes And Investment.” “Conservatives see a substantial effect, but even some conservative economists acknowledge that it is impossible to prove the connection using economic data given all of the other variables at work in the economy. Instead, they sometimes make their case on theoretical, or even visceral, terms. Or they publish analyses like the one from Ernst & Young, which is not an empirical study, using real-world data, but one making predictions based on the authors’ assumptions about the relationship between taxes and investment.” [New York Times, 10/11/12]EVIDENCE SHOWS THAT ENDING THE BUSH-ERA INCOME TAX CUTS FOR HIGH-INCOME PEOPLE WILL NOT AFFECT SMALL BUSINESS HIRINGCenter On Budget And Policy Priorities: Small Business Job Growth Was?Twice As Strong?In The 1990s When The Top Individual Income Tax Rate Was 39.6 Percent As In The 2001-2007 Economic Recovery When The Top Rate Was 35 Percent . “The experience of recent decades also contradicts predictions made when the 1993 budget reconciliation legislation (which instituted?larger?tax rate increases on high-income taxpayers than those now under discussion) was being considered that those rate increases would seriously harm small businesses and economic growth.? Instead, the economy flourished in the 1990s.? As Figure 1 shows, small business job growth was?twice as strong?in the 1990s when the top individual income tax rate was 39.6 percent as in the 2001-2007 economic recovery when the top rate was 35 percent.” [Center On Budget On Policy And Priorities, 7/19/12]Tax Policy Center: “The Effective Tax Rate On Small Business Income Is Likely To Be Zero Or Negative, Regardless Of Small Changes In The Marginal Tax Rates” And “The Marginal Tax Rate Should Have A Minimal Impact On Hiring.” “Those statistics aside, the effective tax rate on small business income is likely to be zero or negative, regardless of small changes in the marginal tax rates.? This is for three reasons.? First, small businesses can expense (immediately deduct in full) the cost of investment. This alone brings the effective tax rate on new investment to zero, regardless of the statutory rate.? Second, if they can finance the investment with debt, the interest payments would be tax deductible, making the effective tax rate negative.? Third, they can deduct wage payments in full, so the marginal tax rate should have minimal impact on hiring.”[Tax Policy Center Blog, 9/19/11]THE AUTHORS OF THE ERNST AND YOUNG STUDY ACKNOWLEDGED THE BENEFITS OF PRESIDENT OBAMA’S PROPOSAL TO EXTEND THE MIDDLE CLASS TAX CUTS—JUST LIKE THE CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICEThe Authors Of The Study Acknowledge That Taxpayers Facing Top Rates Are More Likely To Save Their Tax Cuts Compared To Other Taxpayers. Drs. Carroll and Prante wrote,“Although a disproportionate share of the tax change is likely to be channeled through savings for taxpayers facing the top tax rates as compared to other taxpayers, these policies can still be expected to have significant effects on output and employment in the near term.” [Ernst & Young, July 2012]Congressional Budget Office: Compared To Extending All Of The Bush Tax Cuts, The President’s Proposal To Extend Middle Class Tax Cuts Would “Be More Cost-Effective In Boosting Output And Employment In The Short Run.” “One variant on this option would be to defer for one year most of the tax increases associated with the expiration of the 2010 tax act but allow the rate increases for the top brackets to go into effect. That option would be more cost-effective in boosting output and employment in the short run because the higher-income households that would probably spend a smaller fraction of any increase in their after-tax income would receive a smaller share of the reduction in taxes (relative to current law).” [Congressional Budget Office, 11/15/11]Pushback: “You Didn’t Build That”ROMNEY TOOK OUT OF CONTEXT PRESIDENT OBAMA’S COMMENTS ABOUT HOW THE “UNBELIEVABLE AMERICAN SYSTEM” HELPS AMERICANS SUCCEED, EVEN THOUGH HIS OWN STATEMENTS AGREE WITH THE PRESIDENTROMNEY’S ATTACK HAS BEEN DEBUNKED AS “DESCENDING INTO SILLY SEASON,” “MISLEADING,” “WILDLY OUT OF CONTEXT,” AND “FALSE”The Washington Post Fact Checker: “Romney Descends Into Silly Season When He Extrapolates Obama’s Quote And Says That Means Obama Believes Steve Jobs Did Not Build Apple Computers.” “Romney, however, descends into silly season when he extrapolates Obama’s quote and says that means Obama believes Steve Jobs did not build Apple Computers. Here’s what Obama?said?when Jobs passed away earlier this year: ‘By building one of the planet’s most successful companies from his garage, he exemplified the spirit of American ingenuity. By making computers personal and putting the Internet in our pockets, he made the information revolution not only accessible, but intuitive and fun.’ That sounds like Obama believes that Jobs really did build his company. [Washington Post Fact-Checker, 7/23/12]The Washington Post Fact Checker Gave Three Pinocchios To Romney’s Use Of President Obama’s Comment On How Education And Infrastructure Can Help Small Businesses Succeed. [Washington Post Fact-Checker, 7/23/12]The Washington Post’s Ezra Klein Called Romney’s Ad A “Misleading Attack Ad” Stating, “In Romney’s Ad, ‘That’ Refers To ‘Building A Business.’ In Obama’s Remarks, ‘That’ Refers To The Roads And Bridges.” [Washington Post, WonkBlog, 7/19/12]Associated Press: “Mitt Romney Says Barack Obama Doesn't Think Entrepreneurs Built Their Businesses. The Problem Is That's Not What The President Said.”? “Mitt Romney says Barack Obama doesn't think entrepreneurs built their businesses. The problem is that's not what the president said. The brouhaha over Obama's comments on businesses shows no sign of fading. Romney continues to hammer Obama over comments taken wildly out of context and Romney's allies are pummeling the president as a government-obsessed figure who thinks Washington is to credit for small-business success.” [Associated Press, 7/24/12]Associated Press: Romney Took President Obama’s Comments “Wildly Out Of Context.” [Associated Press, 7/24/12]Tampa Bay Times PolitiFact Rated Romney’s Attack “False” Stating Romney “Conveniently Ignores Obama's Clear Summary Of His Message, That ‘The Point Is ... That When We Succeed, We Succeed Because Of Our Individual Initiative, But Also Because We Do Things Together.”?“In speeches and videos, the Romney campaign has repeatedly distorted Obama's words. By plucking two sentences out of context, Romney twists the president's remarks and ignores their real meaning. The preceding sentences make clear that Obama was talking about the importance of government-provided infrastructure and education to the success of private businesses. Romney also conveniently ignores Obama's clear summary of his message, that ‘the point is ... that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together.’ By leaving out the ‘individual initiative’ reference, Romney and his supporters have misled viewers and given a false impression. For that, we rate the claim False.” [Tampa Bay Times, PolitiFact, 7/26/12]AS INDEPENDENT NEWS OUTLETS AND FACT CHECKERS NOTED, PRESIDENT OBAMA WAS DESCRIBING THE WAYS IN WHICH THE AMERICAN SYSTEM—INCLUDING EDUCATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE—CAN HELP INDIVIDUALS SUCCEEDWashington Post’s The Fix: “Romney’s Ad Truncates Obama’s Words,” Cutting Remarks About Education And Infrastructure That Made It “More Clear That He Was Saying Individuals Didn’t Build That System, Not That Individuals Don’t Build Their Own Businesses.” “Like the Web video, Romney’s ad truncates Obama’s words to make them more damaging. ‘In the ad, the video jumps from the president saying ‘If you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own’ to ‘If you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that.’ In his speech, Obama spoke in between about the infrastructure and education that help, making it more clear that he was saying individuals didn’t build that system, not that individuals don’t build their own businesses.” [Washington Post, The Fix Blog, 7/20/12]Los Angeles Times: Romney Was “Mischaracterizing” President Obama’s Comment, Where He Praised Individual Achievement And Said, “Success By Anyone Rests On Contributions From Others.” “But Romney was mischaracterizing what Obama actually said. In his full comment, Obama lauded individual achievement but said success by anyone rests on contributions from others, such as school teachers or road builders.” [Los Angeles Times, 7/17/12]need the infrastructure provided by the government in order to succeed.” [ABC News, 7/17/12]ROMNEY ATTACKED PRESIDENT OBAMA’S COMMENT HOW THE AMERICAN SYSTEM SUPPORTS SUCCESS, EVEN AS ROMNEY ESSENTIALLY MADE THE SAME ARGUMENTRomney Attacked President Obama’s Comment On Public Services That Support Businesses, Even As Romney’s Own Statement Agreed “With The Broader Context Of Obama’s Remarks.” “The Romney campaign came out with a new video today highlighting Mitt Romney's attack yesterday in Irwin, PA on President Obama for saying “if you've got a business you didn't build that, someone else made that happen.”?But the Romney video edits a a portion of Romney's speech in which he seems to agree with the broader context of the Obama's remarks, saying people didn't make it on their own.” [Buzzfeed, 7/18/12]Buzzfeed: “New Romney Video Omits Passage Apparently Agreeing With Obama”[Buzzfeed, 7/18/12]CONTRASTPresident Obama Has Cut Taxes For Small Businesses, But Romney Could Raise Taxes On Small Business OwnersPRESIDENT OBAMA HAS CUT TAXES FOR SMALL BUSINESS, MADE IT EASIER FOR SMALL BUSINESS TO GET LOANS, AND SIGNED LEGISLATION TO HELP GROWING BUSINESSES TOPUBLIC AND GET FINANCINGPresident Obama Has Signed 18 Tax Cuts To Support Small Business Growth. “To date, the President has supported 18 direct tax breaks that bolster small business growth. In September 2010, he signed the Small Business Jobs Act, which included eight new small business tax cuts that, among other forms of tax relief, extended accelerated bonus depreciation for two million businesses, making investment and growth more affordable; made investments in one million small firms eligible for zero capital gains taxes; and allowed two million self-employed Americans to deduct their health insurance costs when calculating their self-employment taxes.” [White House National Economic Council, May 2012]President Obama Signed The Small Business Jobs Act, Which Extended Expansions Of Loan Guarantees, Increased Loan Limits, And Expanded The Number Of Small Businesses Eligible For SBA Loans. “SBA loan provisions, with the 90% guarantee and reduced fees, were extended through 2010. The $505 million in subsidy for Jobs Act loans supported more than $12 billion in overall small business lending…The law permanently increased 7(a) and 504 limits from $2 million to $5 million (for manufacturers in 504 loan program, up to $5.5 million)… The law expanded the number of small businesses eligible for SBA loans by increasing the alternate size standard to those with less than $15 million in net worth and $5 million in average net income.” [Small Business Administration, accessed 5/22/12]Business Start-Up Creation Was Up 25,000 In The Fourth Quarter Of 2011 Compared With The First Quarter Of 2009. According to Bureau of Labor Statistics Business Employment Dynamics data, the number of private sector establishment births in the first quarter of 2012 was 172,000. The number of private sector establishment births in the fourth quarter of 2011, the most recent data available, was 197,000. [Business Employment Dynamics, Bureau Of Labor Statistics, 8/2/12]President Obama Proposed A 10 Percent Income Tax Credit For Hiring New Employees Or Raising The Salaries Of Existing Employees And Proposed Extending 100 Percent Expensing In 2012 For All Businesses. “The president called for passage of proposed legislation that would provide a 10 percent income tax credit for firms that create new jobs or increase wages in 2012 and extends 100 percent expensing in 2012 for all businesses.” [RTT News, 5/16/12]THE ROMNEY-RYAN TAX HIKE COULD RAISE TAXES FOR 30 MILLION SMALL BUSINESS OWNERSIf Romney’s Tax Plan Was Paid For, Taxpayers Making Less Than $200,000 Would See Average Tax Increases. [Tax Policy Center, On The Distributional Effects Of Base-Broadening Income Tax Reform, p. 16, 8/1/12]Politifact: “To Make Romney’s Plan Revenue Neutral,” Those Making Less Than $200,000 Would “See Outright Tax Increases.” “But to make Romney's plan revenue neutral, deductions would also have to be removed for people with incomes below $200,000, and the effects of that would be significant, the study found. In fact, the elimination of the deductions would mean outright tax increases for everyone with incomes below $200,000. People with taxable income between $50,000 and $75,000, for example, would see an average net tax increase of $641. They’d save $984 from Romney's rate cut, but lose $2,672 in write-offs.” [Politifact, 8/3/12]Tax Policy Center: Nearly 30 Million Americans With Business Income Earn Less Than $200,000. According to Tax Policy Center data on tax units with business income, there are: 2,762,000 that earn less than $10,000; 3,089,000 that earn between $10,000 and $20,000; 2,983,000 that earn between $20,000 and $30,000; 2,904,000 that earn between $30,000 and $40,000; 2,558,000 that earn between $40,000 and $50,000; 4,796,000 that earn between $50,000 and $75,000; 3,861,000 that earn between $75,000 and $100,000; and 6,568,000 that make between $100,000 and $200,000. In total, there are 29,522,000 tax units with business income that earn less than $200,000. [Tax Policy Center, T11-0148 - Baseline Distribution of Business Income, by Cash Income Level; Current Law, 2011, 6/7/11]THE ROMNEY-RYAN BUDGET COULD CUT SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION FUNDING BY 19%?– A CUT OF $170 MILLIONThe Ryan Budget Would Cut Domestic Discretionary Spending By 19 Percent, And “Since The House Has Refused To Specify What Would Be Cut, We Consider The Impacts If The Cuts Are Distributed Equally Across The Budget.” “Yesterday, House Republicans released their budget resolution for FY 2013… On top of the roughly $1 trillion in cuts in the Budget Control Act, it would be difficult to overstate the radicalism of the domestic cuts proposed by the House budget resolution.? In 2013, it would cut annual non-defense funding by 5 percent.? By 2014, the resolution would cut this funding by 19 percent in purely nominal terms. Over a decade, the resolution would cut over $1 trillion in non-defense spending on top of the reductions the President has already signed into law.? The cuts in non-defense discretionary funding are nearly three times as deep as the cuts under the so-called sequester — cuts that we and most objective analysts have always regarded as an unwise and unacceptable. What would it all mean? The Budget doesn’t say.? In fact, the Budget resolution includes a magic asterisk — or, in more technical parlance, an ‘allowance’— for $897 billion in unspecified cuts. But what could the resolution mean?? Since the House has refused to specify what would be cut, we consider the impacts if the cuts are distributed equally across the Budget. The result would be that.” [Jeff Zients, Acting Director of the Office of Management and Budget, , 3/21/12]2012: The Enacted Small Business Administration Budget Was $900 Million. [Fiscal year 2013 Budget, Office of Management & Budget, p. 240]ATTACKRomney Would Take Away Tax Cuts For Small BusinessesREALITY: ROMNEY AND RYAN WOULD REPEAL OBAMACARE, AND WITH IT THE TAX CUTS FOR SMALL BUSINESSRomney: “If I’m President, I Will Repeal Obamacare, And I’ll Kill It Dead On Its First Day.” [Romney town hall, Collinsville, IL, 3/17/12]Romney: “Friday Is The Second Anniversary Of Obamacare. It Is Past Time To Abolish The Program, Root And Branch.” [Mitt Romney Op-Ed, USA Today, 3/22/12]2013 Ryan Budget Repealed Health Care Reform Bill. Here’s a review of the 32 votes taken since January 2011. Note that the vote count, provided by the office of the House Majority Whip, includes votes on final passage of bills and the passage of certain amendments related to the health-care law: … 28.) March 29, 2012: The Fiscal 2013 Federal Budget: This spending proposal also repealed and defunded the health law.” [, 7/11/12]The Small Business Health Care Credit Currently Covers Up To 35 Percent Of Small Business’s Health Insurance Costs, And Will Increase To Cover 50 Percent In 2014. “For tax years 2010 through 2013, the maximum credit is 35 percent for small business employers and 25 percent for small tax-exempt employers such as charities. An enhanced version of the credit will be effective beginning Jan. 1, 2014. Additional information about the enhanced version will be added to as it becomes available. In general, on Jan. 1, 2014, the rate will increase to 50 percent and 35 percent, respectively.” [IRS Fact Sheet, 2/14/2012]The Romney-Ryan Budget Could Slash Investments In Small BusinessTHE ROMNEY-RYAN BUDGET COULD CUT SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION FUNDING BY 19%?– A CUT OF $170 MILLIONThe Ryan Budget Would Cut Domestic Discretionary Spending By 19 Percent, And “Since The House Has Refused To Specify What Would Be Cut, We Consider The Impacts If The Cuts Are Distributed Equally Across The Budget.” “Yesterday, House Republicans released their budget resolution for FY 2013… On top of the roughly $1 trillion in cuts in the Budget Control Act, it would be difficult to overstate the radicalism of the domestic cuts proposed by the House budget resolution.? In 2013, it would cut annual non-defense funding by 5 percent.? By 2014, the resolution would cut this funding by 19 percent in purely nominal terms. Over a decade, the resolution would cut over $1 trillion in non-defense spending on top of the reductions the President has already signed into law.? The cuts in non-defense discretionary funding are nearly three times as deep as the cuts under the so-called sequester — cuts that we and most objective analysts have always regarded as an unwise and unacceptable. What would it all mean? The Budget doesn’t say.? In fact, the Budget resolution includes a magic asterisk — or, in more technical parlance, an ‘allowance’— for $897 billion in unspecified cuts. But what could the resolution mean?? Since the House has refused to specify what would be cut, we consider the impacts if the cuts are distributed equally across the Budget. The result would be that.” [Jeff Zients, Acting Director of the Office of Management and Budget, , 3/21/12]2012: The Enacted Small Business Administration Budget Was $900 Million. [Fiscal year 2013 Budget, Office of Management & Budget, p. 240]Romney Could Raise Taxes On Small Business OwnersTHE ROMNEY-RYAN TAX HIKE COULD RAISE TAXES FOR 30 MILLION SMALL BUSINESS OWNERSIf Romney’s Tax Plan Was Paid For, Taxpayers Making Less Than $200,000 Would See Average Tax Increases. [Tax Policy Center, On The Distributional Effects Of Base-Broadening Income Tax Reform, p. 16, 8/1/12]Politifact: “To Make Romney’s Plan Revenue Neutral,” Those Making Less Than $200,000 Would “See Outright Tax Increases.” “But to make Romney's plan revenue neutral, deductions would also have to be removed for people with incomes below $200,000, and the effects of that would be significant, the study found. In fact, the elimination of the deductions would mean outright tax increases for everyone with incomes below $200,000. People with taxable income between $50,000 and $75,000, for example, would see an average net tax increase of $641. They’d save $984 from Romney's rate cut, but lose $2,672 in write-offs.” [Politifact, 8/3/12]Tax Policy Center: Nearly 30 Million Americans With Business Income Earn Less Than $200,000. According to Tax Policy Center data on tax units with business income, there are: 2,762,000 that earn less than $10,000; 3,089,000 that earn between $10,000 and $20,000; 2,983,000 that earn between $20,000 and $30,000; 2,904,000 that earn between $30,000 and $40,000; 2,558,000 that earn between $40,000 and $50,000; 4,796,000 that earn between $50,000 and $75,000; 3,861,000 that earn between $75,000 and $100,000; and 6,568,000 that make between $100,000 and $200,000. In total, there are 29,522,000 tax units with business income that earn less than $200,000. [Tax Policy Center, T11-0148 - Baseline Distribution of Business Income, by Cash Income Level; Current Law, 2011, 6/7/11]Under Romney, Small Business Suffered In MassachusettsUNDER ROMNEY, THE RATE OF NEW START-UPS IN MASSACHUSETTS WAS SLOWER THAN THE NATIONAL AVERAGE, DECLINING DURING ROMNEY’S TENURE?Start-Up Creation In Massachusetts Declined Over The Course of Romney’s Tenure. During the fourth quarter of 2002—the quarter before Romney took office, 4,510 establishments were born in Massachusetts. During the 4th quarter of 2006—his final quarter—only 4,026 establishments were born. As a whole, 2006 had the lowest level of establishment births since 1993, when state data is first available.[, accessed 6/4/2012]?By The Time Romney Left Office, More Business Establishments Were Going Out Of Business Than Being Created. In 2002, the year before Romney took office, Massachusetts on average had 4,517 new start-ups per quarter compared to 4,334 business “deaths.” By 2006, there were an average 4,084 new start-ups per quarter in Massachusetts compared to 4,099 business deaths. [, accessed 6/4/2012] ?The Average Rate Of Start-up Creation Was Lower Than The National Average During Romney’s Tenure. In total, the average start-up creation rate for Massachusetts from the 1th quarter of 2003 to the 4th quarter of 2006 was 2.7%, while it was 3.2% for the nation. [, accessed 6/4/2012]STIMULUSPRO-POTUSThe Recovery Act Helped Stop Job Losses And Return The Economy To GrowthTHE RECOVERY ACT HELPED STOP JOB LOSSES AND RETURN THE ECONOMY TO GROWTH, AVERTING A SECOND GREAT DEPRESSIONThe Non-Partisan Congressional Budget Office Estimated That The Recovery Act Raised Employment By As Many As 3.5 Million Jobs At The End Of 2010. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the Recovery Act raised employment in the fourth quarter of 2010 by up to 3.5 million compared with what would have occurred otherwise. [“Estimated Impact Of the American Recovery And Reinvestment Act On Employment And Economic Output From October Through December 2011,” Congressional Budget Office, February 2012]USA Today: “Eighteen Months Later, The Consensus Among Economists Is That The Stimulus Worked In Staving Off A Rerun Of The 1930s.” “Liberal?economists such as?New York?Times?columnist?Paul Krugman?complained that the massive program should have been larger and was marred by the inclusion of excessive tax cuts that would have a less-immediate impact on job creation. Republicans derided the legislation as wasteful spending that would add to ballooning government debt. Eighteen months later, the consensus among economists is that the stimulus worked in staving off a rerun of the 1930s.” ?[USA Today, 8/30/2010]In A Survey Of Economic Experts Including Democratic, Republican, And Independent-Leaning Economists, 80 Percent Agreed Or Strongly Agreed With The Statement “Because Of The American Recovery And Reinvestment Act Of 2009, The U.S. Unemployment Rate Was Lower At The End Of 2010 Than It Would Have Been Without The Stimulus Bill.” [University of Chicago Booth School of Business Initiative on Global Markets Economic Experts Panel, 2/15/2012]The Obama Administration Was Able To Support Approximately 300,000 Education Jobs Through The Recovery Act. “In 2009, the President effectively deployed stabilization funds for state education budgets through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, which enabled states and schools districts to keep approximately 300,000 educators on the job in the face of budget cuts caused by the economic recession.” [Education Blueprint: An Economy Built to Last, White House, Accessed 04/15/12]The COPS Hiring Recovery Program Was Enabled Communities To Retain Or Add 4,699 Law Enforcement Jobs. “The Justice Department’s Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) added $1 billion in Recovery Act grants specifically to help police departments retain officers or hire new recruits to fill open positions. The COPS Hiring Recovery Program provides funds to cover full-time salaries and benefits for state, local, territorial and tribal police officers for three years. According to the Department of Justice: 7,300 applications received from all 50 states; 4,699 officer jobs expected to be retained or created.” [, 1/8/2010]The Recovery Act Included 25 Tax Cuts “Mostly Aimed At The Middle Class And Small Businesses.” “’We passed without, frankly, the help of the Republican caucus, we passed 25 tax cuts last year, mostly aimed at the middle class and small businesses,’ Axelrod said. We were intrigued by the claim that Democrats passed 25 tax cuts last year, so we contacted the White House press office and asked for a list. And they gave us one, all from the economic stimulus package championed by Obama and signed on Feb. 17, 2009. We checked them out, provided sections and page numbers in the stimulus for reference, and added a brief explainer for some. If your eyes glaze over midway through, feel free to skip ahead to the bottom of the list where we'll pick up our analysis… We find Axelrod's statement True.” [Tampa Bay Times, PolitiFact, 2/10/2010]The Making Work Pay Tax Credit, Which Was Included In The Recovery Act, Cut Taxes For 95% Of Working Families. [Tampa Bay Times, PolitiFact, 1/27/2010]One Third Of The Recovery Act Was Targeted To Tax Cuts For Working Families And Businesses, One Third Was Used For Emergency Relief For The Hardest Hit, And One Third Was Used For Projects To Create Jobs, Spur Economic Activity And Lay The Foundation For Future Growth. “Approximately one-third of the Act’s funds were targeted to tax cuts for small businesses and 95 percent of working families. Another third was used for emergency relief for those who bore the brunt of the recession. For example, more than 17 million Americans benefited from extended or increased unemployment benefits, and health insurance was made 65 percent less expensive for laid-off workers and their families who relied on COBRA. The final third was invested in projects to create jobs, spur economic activity, and lay the foundation for future sustained growth.” [FY2013 Budget Of The U.S. Government, February 2012]Pushback: President Obama Promised Employment Would Be Below 8 PercentROMNEY’S 8 PERCENT UNEMPLOYMENT CLAIM HAS BEEN RATED “FALSE” REPEATEDLYINDEPENDENT FACT CHECKERS HAVE REPEATEDLY DEBUNKED THE CLAIM THAT THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION PROMISED THE RECOVERY ACT WOULD KEEP UNEMPLOYMENT BELOW 8 PERCENTCleveland Plain Dealer PolitiFact “Could Find No Evidence Of Anyone In The Administration Making A Public Pledge That The Stimulus Would Keep The Unemployment Rate Below 8 Percent.” “Obama warned upon taking office that if "dramatic action" were not taken, "the unemployment rate could reach double digits," with the recession lasting for years. But PolitiFact could find no evidence of anyone in the administration making a public pledge that the stimulus would keep the unemployment rate below 8 percent.” [Cleveland Plain Dealer, PolitiFact, 10/13/2011]Cleveland Plain Dealer PolitiFact Has Reviewed This Claim Multiple Times And Has Called It “Mostly False” In Each Case. “PolitiFact National and its state affiliates have debunked similar claims several times before, starting with U.S. Rep. Eric Cantor (R-Virginia)?in July 2009. More recently,?Romney faced the Truth-O-Meter for repeating that statement?earlier this month after winning the Nevada caucuses. Each time, the claim has received a Mostly False.” [Cleveland Plain Dealer, PolitiFact, 2/27/2012]Associated Press: “Obama Never Said That He Would Hold Unemployment Below 8 Percent If Congress Adopted His Stimulus Package.” “ROMNEY: ‘The administration pledged that their stimulus would keep the unemployment rate below 8 percent. It has been above 8 percent every month since.’ THE FACTS: Obama never said that he would hold unemployment below 8 percent if Congress adopted his stimulus package.” [Associated Press, 4/5/2012]Washington Post Fact Checker: “The Information To Disprove This Claim Exists On The?Romney Campaign Web Site.” “Interestingly, the information to disprove this claim exists on the?Romney campaign Web site. Far from being anything that Obama said, the Romney campaign acknowledges that this 8 percent figure comes from a staff-written projection issued Jan. 9, 2009 — before Obama had taken the oath of office. Of course, the campaign still spins it as a negative.” [Washington Post, 2/21/2012]THE 8 PERCENT FIGURE CITED BY ROMNEY AND REPUBLICANS COMES FROM A REPORT THE PRESIDENT’S TRANSITION TEAM PREPARED AND RELEASED WEEKS BEFORE THE PRESIDENT TOOK OFFICEThe 8 Percent Figure Cited By Romney And Republicans Comes From A Report The President’s Transition Team Prepared And Released Weeks Before The President Took Office. “The 8 percent figure cited by Romney, and many other Republicans, comes from a transition staff-written projection written by economists Christina Romer and Jared Bernstein that was issued weeks before Obama was sworn in and long before there even was a stimulus plan before Congress.” [Associated Press, 4/5/2012]THE ANALYSIS OF THE RECOVERY PLAN’S IMPACT NOTED THAT ESTIMATES WERE SUBJECT TO SIGNIFICANT MARGINS OF ERRORCleveland Plain Dealer PolitiFact Noted That The Unemployment Estimates In The Recovery Plan Analysis Came With Heavy Disclaimers; The Report Stated “The Estimates Presented In This Memo Are Subject To Significant Margins Of Error.” “But do those projections from the administration in January 2009 constitute a promise?? They certainly came with heavy disclaimers. ‘It should be understood that all of the estimates presented in this memo are subject to significant margins of error,’ the report states. ‘There is the more fundamental uncertainty that comes with any estimate of the effects of a program. Our estimates of economic relationships and rules of thumb are derived from historical experience and so will not apply exactly in any given episode. Furthermore, the uncertainty is surely higher than normal now because the current recession is unusual both in its fundamental causes and its severity.’” [Cleveland Plain Dealer, PolitiFact, 10/13/2011]AT THE TIME THE REPORT WAS WRITTEN, OTHER ECONOMISTS HAD SIMILAR FORECASTS“At The Time, Other Economists Had Similar Forecasts — Romer And Bernstein Were In The Mid-Range — But The Economy Turned Out To Be In Deeper Trouble Than Most People Thought.”[Washington Post, 2/21/2012]President Obama’s Investments In Clean Energy Have Helped Create JobsPRESIDENT OBAMA REFUSES TO CEDE THE JOBS OF THE FUTURE TO OUR GLOBAL COMPETITORS, AND HIS INVESTMENTS IN CLEAN ENERGY HAVE SUPPORTED HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF JOBS IN A SECTOR THAT EMPLOYS MILLIONS OF AMERICANSPRESIDENT OBAMA HAS PLEDGED TO DOUBLE DOWN ON THE PROMISE OF CLEAN ENERGY SO THAT THE UNITED STATES DOES NOT CEDE THESE INDUSTRIES TO GLOBAL COMPETITORSPresident Obama: “I Will Not Cede The Wind Or The Solar Or The Battery Industry To China Or Germany.” “The payoff on these public investments, they don’t always come right away, and some technologies don’t pan out, and some companies will fail.? But as long as I’m President, I will not walk away from the promise of clean energy.? Your future is too important.? I will not -- I will not cede, I will not give up, I will not cede the wind or the solar or the battery industry to China or Germany because some politicians in Washington have refused to make the same commitment here in America.” [Remarks by the President on Energy, 2/23/12]PRESIDENT OBAMA’S INVESTMENTS IN CLEAN ENERGY HAVE SUPPORTED HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF JOBS IN A SECTOR THAT EMPLOYS MILLIONS OF AMERICANSThe President’s Council Of Economic Advisors Estimated That Recovery Act Investments In The Clean Energy Sector Created Or Saved 224,500 Jobs As Of The End Of 2010.? “Clean energy investments were responsible for nearly a quarter of the 1 million public investment jobs – or 224,500 clean energy jobs.” [Council Of Economic Advisors, White House Press Release, 11/18/10]The Department Of Energy Has Supported Between 40,000 And 50,000 Direct Jobs Each Quarter Since The Summer Of 2010. According to a Department of Energy fact sheet on the successes of the Recovery Act: “DOE has consistently been supporting between 40,000-50,000 direct jobs each quarter since Summer 2010. Last quarter alone (Oct-Dec 2011), DOE supported nearly 41,000 direct jobs, the second largest of any federal agency.” [Department of Energy Fact Sheet, January 2012]Spending Related To Construction And Installation Of Wind And Solar Projects Supported By The Department Of Energy’s 1603 Program Is Estimated To Have Supported 52,000 To 75,000 Direct And Indirect Jobs Each Year Between 2009 And 2011. “The estimated gross jobs, earnings, and economic output supported by the PV and large wind projects that received §1603 funds are summarized below and in Table ES-1: Construction- and installation-related expenditures are estimated to have supported an average of 52,000–75,000 direct and indirect jobs per year over the program’s operational period (2009–2011). This represents a total of 150,000–220,000 job-years.” [National Renewable Energy Laboratory, 4/6/12]There Were 3.1 Million People Employed In The Production Of Green Goods And Services In 2010, Accounting For 2.4 Percent Of Total Employment. “In 2010, 3.1 million jobs in the United States were associated with the production of green goods and services, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. Green Goods and Services (GGS) jobs are found in businesses that produce goods and provide services that benefit the environment or conserve natural resources. GGS jobs accounted for 2.4 percent of total employment in 2010.” [Bureau of Labor Statistics, 3/22/12]As Of August 2011, The Number Of Americans Employed In The Solar Industry Rose 6.8% In The Past Year To 100,237. “U.S. solar companies added jobs over the last 12 months at a pace much faster than the general economy and remain highly optimistic regarding their overall revenue growth in the near term. Speci?cally, as of August 2011, the U.S. solar industry employs an estimated 100,237 solar workers—de?ned as those workers who spend at least 50% of their time supporting solar-related activities—up 6.8% since August 2010.” [National Solar Jobs Census 2011, 9/19/11]In The Past Five Years, The American Wind Industry Has Supported 75,000 Jobs. According to a press release from the American Wind Energy Association: “In the past five years of bipartisan policy stability, American wind power has: … Created nearly 500 new American manufacturing facilities and employed 75,000 overall, including 30,000 in the manufacturing sector, from coast to coast.” [American Wind Energy Association, 4/12/12]PRESIDENT OBAMA HAS SUPPORTED THE WIND INDUSTRY, WHICH COULD LEAD TO 500,000 JOBS IN THE WIND INDUSTRY BY 2030According To A Study Conducted For The American Wind Energy Association, An Extension Of The Production Tax Credit Could Lead To 500,000 Jobs In The Wind Industry By 2030. According to the American Wind Energy Association, a study by Navigant Consulting found that “extending the PTC will allow the wind industry to grow to almost 100,000 American jobs in just four years and stay on track toward supporting 500,000 American jobs by 2030.” [American Wind Energy Association Press Release, 4/12/12]President Obama Is Calling On Congress To Extend The Production Tax Credit That Spurs Clean Energy Production By Providing A Tax Credit For The Production Of Clean Energy Like Wind. From a White House fact sheet: “The Production Tax Credit, which expires at the end of 2012, provides a 2.2 cent per kilowatt hour credit for utility scale wind producers. Congress should act to extend the credit. By extending the PTC benefits for American clean energy producers we can avoid layoffs across the country: The wind industry projects that nearly 30,000 jobs will be lost next year if the PTC expires, including direct jobs as well as those in its supply chain.” [White House Fact Sheet, 5/22/12]Pushback: The Recovery Act Helped Companies Outsource JobsINDEPENDENT FACT CHECKERS HAVE DISPUTED REPUBLICAN’S CLAIMS THAT THE STIMULUS PUSHED JOBS OVERSEAS, CALLING THEM “RIDICULOUS,” “RIPPED OUT OF CONTEXT,” AND SAYING THEY DISTORT THE TRUTHWashington Post Fact Checker On The RNC’s Outsourcing Website: “Most Of These Claims Are Ridiculous, Especially For An Organization That Claims It Supports Free Enterprise.” From a fact check of the RNC’s outsourcing website: “Most of these claims are ridiculous, especially for an organization that claims it supports free enterprise. If a foreign company gets stimulus funds, but spends the money in the United States and hires U.S. workers at its U.S. subsidiary, we fail to see how that is money being ‘sent overseas.’ “ [Washington Post, “The Fact Checker,” 7/12/12]Washington Post Fact Checker: Most Of The RNC’s Examples “Are Ripped Out Of Context, Involve Strange Leaps Of Logic Or Are So Minor That It’s Barely Worth Paying Attention.” From a fact check of the RNC’s outsourcing website: “[M]ost of these examples are the equivalent of throwing spaghetti on the wall and seeing what sticks. Some of it is a bit sticky, but most of the examples are ripped out of context, involve strange leaps of logic or are so minor that it’s barely worth paying attention. Out of the $800 billion stimulus bill, nearly $300 billion was devoted to job creation through spending or loans. There were bound to be some clunkers as the money was quickly disbursed, but the examples here do not support the RNC’s broad-brush assertions.” [Washington Post, “The Fact Checker,” 7/12/12]The Pulitzer Prize-Winning Wrote That The Americans For Prosperity Ad “Distorts The Truth About The Economic Stimulus” And Called It “One Of The Sneakiest We’ve Seen This Year.”? “A new Americans for Prosperity ad is one of the sneakiest we’ve seen this year. It weaves tidbits of truth into an artful narrative that distorts the truth about the economic stimulus. We’ve checked three claims from the ad, finding them Mostly False, False and Pants on Fire.” [PolitiFact, 5/4/12]: “An Ad From The Conservative Americans For Prosperity Distorts The Truth About Stimulus Money For ‘Green Jobs’ Going Overseas.” From a fact check of Americans for Prosperity’s “Wasteful Spending” advertisement by , a project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center: “An ad from the conservative Americans for Prosperity distorts the truth about stimulus money for “green jobs” going overseas. The ad, titled ‘Wasteful Spending,’ introduces some new wrinkles to this well-used line of attack.” [, 5/2/12]Pushback: The Obama Administration Awarded Funding To Make Fisker Cars OverseasINDEPENDENT FACT CHECKERS HAVE LABELED THE CLAIM THAT THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION AWARDED FUNDING FOR THE PRODUCTION OF FISKER CARS OVERSEAS “SIMPLY FALSE”The Pulitzer Prize-Winning Rated The Claim That The Stimulus Funded Jobs In Finland “Simply False.” From a PolitiFact fact check of Americans for Prosperity’s claim that the stimulus funded jobs in Finland: ‘An ad from Americans for Prosperity starts with an image of Obama and says the stimulus bill sent tax credits overseas, such as "half a billion to an electric car company that created hundreds of jobs in Finland.’ … Instead, the U.S. company spent a third of the money on U.S. engineering of a new electric vehicle. It chose to manufacture the car in Finland, without U.S. help. Another two-thirds of the loan, which it may or may not get, will go toward retooling a shuttered GM plant in Delaware. The ad strings together disparate statements to tell a concocted story. The result is simply False.” [PolitiFact, 5/3/12]Washington Post Fact Checker: Americans For Prosperity Ad Claiming The Recovery Act Supported Jobs Overseas Contains “Erroneous Assertions” That Are Labeled As The Truth Or Fact “Without Any Shame.” From the Washington Post Fact Checker’s post on the Americans for Prosperity ad and an advertisement by the American Future Fund: “Watching these ads is a depressing duty for The Fact Checker, because many of their claims — regarding ‘billions’ of stimulus dollars going overseas — had been debunked two years ago by our colleagues at PolitiFact and . Yet here the erroneous assertions emerge yet again, without any shame, labeled as ‘the truth’ or ‘fact.’ “ [Washington Post, “The Fact Checker,” 4/30/12]Pushback: Recovery Act Funds Went To Build Windmills In ChinaPREVIOUS CLAIMS THAT $2 BILLION IN STIMULUS MONEY WENT TO PURCHASE WIND TURBINES FROM CHINA HAVE REPEATEDLY BEEN RATED “FALSE”PolitiFact Rated A Republican Congressional Candidate’s Claim That That Nearly $2 Billion In Recovery Act Funds Went Overseas For Wind Turbines And Job Creation “False.” “So while the green-energy grants did end up in the hands of foreign companies, the situation is far from what Scott's commercial claimed. The $2 billion figure is old and incorrect. Even critics agree that money is staying in the country in the form of domestic construction and manufacturing jobs, though the amount is unclear and most jobs are short-term. It's not possible for domestic manufacturers to produce all the wind turbines because they don't have enough capacity.” [PolitiFact, 10/19/10]: “Stimulus Jobs In China? Republicans Falsely Claim That $2 Billion Went To Employ Chinese Workers.” [, 10/29/2010] Washington Post Fact Checker: “The RNC Tries To Fudge Things,” But There’s Nothing In The Report That The RNC Bases Its Claims On “That Says The Stimulus Bill Pushed Jobs Overseas.” From a fact check of the RNC’s outsourcing website: “Choma also made clear that some of the data was squishy. “Some of those foreign-owned turbine manufacturers have factories in the United States and some American-owned turbine manufacturers have factories overseas. We simply don't know where all of the parts were made,’ he wrote in 2010, when he said that updated numbers showed 54 percent of $4.4 billion in stimulus grants for wind farms went to foreign developers. The RNC tries to fudge things by saying ‘billions of dollars did go to create jobs that were outsourced or spent overseas,’ but there is nothing in Choma’s reporting that says the stimulus bill pushed jobs overseas.’ ” [Washington Post, “The Fact Checker,” 7/12/12]Pushback: The Recovery Act Did Not Distribute Funds In A Transparent ProcessPRESIDENT OBAMA APPOINTED THE TOUGHEST INDEPENDENT INSPECTOR GENERAL IN WASHINGTONEarl Devaney, Who Helped Build A Case Against Former Lobbyist Jack Abramoff, Was Appointed To Oversee Recovery Act Spending. “President Obama will announce while meeting with the nation’s governors Monday that he is naming?one of the government's most?aggressive, experienced government investigator to oversee spending of the stimulus package, administration officials said. The?White House's Recovery Act Transparency and Accountability Board?will?be headed by Earl E. Devaney, a former fraud investigator and white-collar crime investigator for the Secret Service who is currently inspector general of the Interior Department. A dozen investigators and analysts working for Devaney helped build a case against former lobbyist Jack Abramoff for corrupt dealings with Indian tribes.” [Politico, 2/22/09] The New York Times Called Earl Devaney “The Busiest Gumshoe Inside The Federal Bureaucracy.” “But it was left to Earl Devaney, the department’s inspector general — and the busiest gumshoe inside the federal bureaucracy — to demonstrate just how bad things could be.” [New York Times, 9/11/08]TIME Magazine’s Michael Grunwald: At The End Of 2011, Independent Investigators Had Documented Fraud Amounting To .001 Percent Of Recovery Act Spending, Far Less Than Experts Anticipated.“That’s the real news. The Department of Energy has handled $37 billion in stimulus money, more than its annual budget. Overall, the federal government has distributed over $800 billion in stimulus money. Where are the sweetheart deals? Where are the actual outrages that are provoking outrage? During the debate over the stimulus, experts warned that as much as 5% to 7% of the stimulus could be lost to fraud. But by the end of 2011, independent investigators had documented only $7.2 million in fraud, about 0.001%. As?I’ve written,?reasonable people can disagree whether the stimulus was a good thing, but it’s definitely been a well-managed thing.” [TIME Magazine, Swampland Blog, 5/31/12]In A Press Release, The House Committee On Oversight And Government Reform Called The Recovery Act’s Transparency Board A “Model For Building A Transparent And Accountable Government.” “The FAST Board will be tasked solely with receiving, organizing, and publishing federal spending information. Chairman Issa first met with Vice President Biden in November of last year to discuss spending transparency and using the Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board as a model for building a transparent and accountable government. Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board Chairman Earl Devaney will testify at an Oversight Committee hearing on federal spending transparency and the solutions that the bill proposes on Tuesday.” [House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform Press Release, 6/13/11]Speaking About The DATA Act, Republican Rep. Darrell Issa Said, “We Owe A Debt Of Gratitude To The Recovery Board For Showing Us An Effective System On Which We Could Build.” “The DATA Act is designed to build on the successes of the Recovery Board. Under the $840 billion Recovery program, the Board collects data from recipients of contracts, grants and loans and displays detailed spending information on its website,?. Proponents were quick to applaud the Board’s dedication to transparency and accountability. ‘The DATA Act … will literally track those trillions of dollars in a way not done outside the Recovery Act,’’ Rep. Darrell Issa, R-CA, the driving force behind the legislation, said during the debate. “Quite frankly, we owe a debt of gratitude to the Recovery Board for showing us an effective system on which we could build.’” [ Blog, 5/9/12]ATTACKRomney Called For A Stimulus, And Ryan Asked For Stimulus MoneyROMNEY CALLED FOR CONGRESS AND THE PRESIDENT TO “MOVE QUICKLY” ON THEIR STIMULUS PLANJANUARY 2009: Romney Said Obama Should “Move Quickly” On The Proposed $750 Billion Stimulus Package Because We Are In “Unusual Times” And “A Stimulus Program Is Needed.” “BLITZER: He’s talking about a $750 billion economic stimulus package. He wants it to be passed as soon as possible. It’s unclear if whether it can be passed before he’s inaugurated on January 20th. What do you think about this proposal? ROMNEY: Well, I frankly wish that the last Congress would have dealt with the stimulus issue and that the president could assign that before leaving office. I think there is need for economic stimulus. Americans have lost about $11 trillion in net worth. That translates into about $400 billion a year less spending that they’ll be doing, and that’s net of additional government programs like Medicaid and unemployment insurance. And government can help make that up in a very difficult time. And that’s one of the reasons why I think a stimulus program is needed. I’d move quickly. These are unusual times. But it has to be something which relieves pressure on middle-income families. I think a tax cut is necessary for them as well as for businesses that are growing. We’ll be investing in infrastructure and in energy technologies.” [CNN, Late Edition, 1/4/09]ROMNEY PRAISED THE PRESIDENT’S STIMULUS PLAN SAYING IT WAS “ENCOURAGING” AND “WILL ACCELERATE THE TIMING OF THE START OF THE RECOVERY”JANUARY 16, 2009: Romney Praised Obama’s Proposed Stimulus As “Encouraging” For Having A “Healthy Dose Of Tax Reductions.” Romney said, “Well, Mika, I don't think I'm going to top what we heard from Leader Boehner, but I can tell you that, in my view, the president's willingness, his rhetoric to say, look, he's going to reach across the aisle, he wants to seek the input from members of our party -- that's a very encouraging sign. The president's plan for economic recovery, including a stimulus bill which includes a very healthy dose of tax reductions, is something which I think showed a willingness to actually listen to some of his own economic advisers that have pointed out in their research that tax reductions have a bigger economic stimulus impact than spending money on infrastructure does. That’s encouraging.” [Morning Joe, 1/16/09]Romney: “The ‘All-Democrat’ Stimulus That Was Passed In Early 2009 Will Accelerate The Timing Of The Start Of The Recovery.” Romney: “The ‘all-democrat’ stimulus that was passed in early 2009 will accelerate the timing of the start of the recovery, but not as much as it could have had it included genuine tax- and job-generating incentives.” [Romney, No Apology: The Case For American Greatness, 158]RYAN WROTE AT LEAST FOUR LETTERS ASKING FOR MILLIONS IN STIMULUS Associated Press: “Ryan Himself Asked For Stimulus Funds,” Including Over $20 Million For The Wisconsin Energy Conservation Corp.” ‘RYAN: "The stimulus was a case of political patronage, corporate welfare and cronyism at their worst. You, the working men and women of this country, were cut out of the deal.’ THE FACTS: Ryan himself asked for stimulus funds shortly after Congress approved the $800 billion plan, known as the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. Ryan's pleas to federal agencies included letters to Energy Secretary Steven Chu and Labor Secretary Hilda Solis seeking stimulus grant money for two Wisconsin energy conservation companies. One of them, the nonprofit Wisconsin Energy Conservation Corp., received $20.3 million from the Energy Department to help homes and businesses improve energy efficiency, according to federal records. That company, he said in his letter, would build ‘sustainable demand for green jobs.’ Another eventual recipient, the Energy Center of Wisconsin, received about $365,000.” [Associated Press, 8/30/12]2009: The Same Year He “Was Railing Against The $787 Billion Stimulus Package” Ryan “Wrote At Least Four Letters To Obama’s Secretary Of Energy Asking That Millions Of Dollars From The Program Be Granted To A Pair Of Wisconsin Conservation Groups.”? “In 2009, as Rep. Paul D. Ryan was railing against President Obama’s $787 billion stimulus package as a ‘wasteful spending spree,’ he wrote at least four letters to Obama’s secretary of energy asking that millions of dollars from the program be granted to a pair of Wisconsin conservation groups, according to documents obtained by the Globe. The advocacy appeared to pay off; both groups were awarded the economic recovery funds—one receiving a $20 million grant to help thousands of local businesses and homes improve their energy efficiency, agency documents show.” [Boston Globe, 8/14/12]Asking For Stimulus Funds From The Department Of Energy, Ryan Claimed The Project In Question Could “Create Or Retain Approximately 7,600 New Jobs Over The 3 Year Grant Period And The Subsequent 3 Years.” [Ryan Letter to the U.S. Department of Energy, 12/18/09]CNN: In One Of The Stimulus Request Letters, Ryan Wrote That The Project “Will Stimulate The Local And Area Economy By Creating New Jobs.” SOLEDAD O'BRIEN, CNN ANCHOR: “In 2009, Congressman Ryan wrote to the Departments of Energy and Labor seeking stimulus money for a pair of local green energy companies. One ended up with more than $20 million. And Congressman Ryan, who you will remember sounded so skeptical that stimulus would create any jobs, he writes that the company in question believes it will -- quote – ‘create or retain approximately 7,600 new jobs over the three-year grant period’ and -- quote – ‘I was pleased that the primary objectives of the project will stimulate the local and area economy by creating new jobs,’ and at the bottom of each letter, ‘Sincerely, Paul Ryan.’” [CNN, 8/17/12]Romney Supported Stimulus Packages In MassachusettsROMNEY SUPPORTED STIMULUS PACKAGES IN MASSACHUSETTS IN 2003 AND 20052003: Romney Signed Into Law A $50 Million Stimulus. “Romney, wearing a casual sweater and slacks in anticipation of the Thanksgiving holiday, vetoed $50 million of the roughly $100 million economic stimulus package that cleared the House and Senate and $30 million of the $111 million in extra spending lawmakers added to the budget for the current fiscal year. The governor signed the two bills after eliminating the $80 million from them… The stimulus package that Romney signed largely comprises tax credits and grants designed to promote the growth of the state's technology industry, while the supplemental spending bill includes money to rehire rape counselors, cancel cuts to mental health and homeless programs, and deliver long-delayed raises to teachers and other workers at University of Massachusetts campuses.” [Boston Globe, 11/27/03]2005: Romney Unveiled A $600 Million Stimulus Package To Kick-Start The Economy And Create 20,000 Jobs Over Five Years Which Included “Offering Employers $30,000 For Each New Person They Hired.” “In February 2005, Romney unveiled a sweeping $600 million stimulus package to kick-start the economy and create 20,000 jobs over five years. … Most controversial: Romney wanted to spend $37 million to create new jobs by offering employers $30,000 for each new person they hired.” [Salon, 2/27/12]TAXESPRO-POTUSPresident Obama Cut Taxes For The Middle Class And Small BusinessesPRESIDENT OBAMA DELIVERED ON HIS PROMISE TO CUT TAXES FOR MIDDLE CLASS FAMILIES AND SMALL BUSINESSESBloomberg Headline: “Obama Delivers On Tax Cut Promises” [Bloomberg, 4/17/2012]A Typical Family Making $50,000 A Year Has Seen Their Taxes Cut By $3,600 Over The Last Four Years Due To The Making Work Pay Tax Credit In 2009 And 2010 And The Payroll Tax Cut In 2011 And 2012. “A typical family making $50,000 a year has seen their taxes cut by $3,600 over the last four years, $800 in each of 2009 and 2010 due to the Making Work Pay tax credit and $1,000 in each of 2011 and 2012 due to the payroll tax cut.” [White House National Economic Council, July 2012]President Obama Has Signed 18 Tax Cuts To Support Small Business Growth. “To date, the President has supported 18 direct tax breaks that bolster small business growth. In September 2010, he signed the Small Business Jobs Act, which included eight new small business tax cuts that, among other forms of tax relief, extended accelerated bonus depreciation for two million businesses, making investment and growth more affordable; made investments in one million small firms eligible for zero capital gains taxes; and allowed two million self-employed Americans to deduct their health insurance costs when calculating their self-employment taxes.” [White House National Economic Council, May 2012]PRESIDENT OBAMA HAS A PLAN TO KEEP MIDDLE CLASS TAXES LOW FOR 98 PERCENT OF AMERICAN FAMILIES AND 97 PERCENT OF SMALL BUSINESSESPresident Obama Proposed Extending Middle Class Tax Cuts For The 98 Percent Of Families Making Less Than $250,000.? “Under the President’s proposal, the 98 percent of American families with incomes of less than $250,000 per year would continue to benefit in full from the income tax cuts expiring at the end of 2012…The President’s proposal and legislation introduced by Congressional Democrats would provide certainty for the 114 million middle class families whose taxes will go up on January 1 if Congress does not act.” [White House National Economic Council, July 2012]The President’s Proposal To Extend The Middle Class Tax Cuts Would Continue All Tax Cuts On Business Income For 97 Percent Of Small Business Owners. “Even using an overly broad definition of small business owner, the President’s proposal to extend the middle class tax cuts would continue all tax cuts on business income for 97 percent of ‘small business owners.’”[White House National Economic Council, July 2012]President Obama’s Tax Plan Would Lower Rates And Reward Creating Jobs Here In The United StatesPRESIDENT OBAMA’S PLAN WOULD LOWER RATES, PROVIDE TAX CREDITS TO COMPANIES MOVING OPERATIONS BACK TO THE U.S., AND CUT TAXES FOR SMALL BUSINESSES THAT HIRE, RAISE WAGES, OR INVESTPresident Obama Proposed A Tax Reform Framework That Would Reduce The Top Corporate Tax Rate To 28 Percent While Lowering The Maximum Effective Rate For Manufacturers To 25 Percent. “President Obama?asked Congress on Wednesday to scrub the corporate tax code of dozens of loopholes and subsidies to reduce the top rate to 28 percent, from 35 percent, while giving preferences to manufacturers that would set their maximum effective rate at 25 percent.” [New York Times, 2/23/2012]President Obama’s Tax Reform Framework Would Effectively Cut The Top Corporate Tax Rate On Manufacturing Income To 25 Percent, With An Even Lower Rate For Advanced Manufacturing Activities. “Effectively cut the top corporate tax rate on manufacturing income to 25 percent and to an even lower rate for income from advanced manufacturing activities by reforming the domestic production activities deduction. Reflecting manufacturing’s key role in innovation and the intense international competition facing the sector, the President’s Framework would reform the current domestic production activities deduction. It would focus the deduction more on manufacturing activity, expand the deduction to 10.7 percent, and increase it even more for advanced manufacturing. This would effectively cut the top corporate tax rate for manufacturing income to 25 percent and even lower for advanced manufacturing.” [The President’s Framework For Tax Reform, February 2012]President Obama’s Tax Reform Framework Removes Tax Deductions For Moving Production Overseas And Provides New Incentives For Bringing Production Back To The United States. “Remove tax deductions for moving productions overseas and provide new incentives for bringing production back to the United States. The tax code currently allows companies moving operations overseas to deduct their moving expenses—and reduce their taxes in the United States as a result. The President is proposing that companies will no longer be allowed to claim tax deductions for moving their operations abroad. At the same time, to help bring jobs home, the President is proposing to give a 20 percent income tax credit for the expenses of moving operations back into the United States.” [The President’s Framework For Tax Reform, February 2012]The President Is Proposing To Make Permanent The Tax Cut To Eliminate Taxes On Capital Gains On Certain Stock Investments In Small Businesses. “The President is proposing to make permanent the tax cut to eliminate taxes on capital gains on certain stock investments in small businesses. In addition, this tax cut would be expanded so that it would also be allowed under the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) and to increase the “rollover” period for qualified small business stock investments, making the permanent elimination of capital gains taxes available to more investors.” [“Moving America’s Small Businesses And Entrepreneurs Forward,” White House National Economic Council, May 2012]President Obama Proposed A 10 Percent Income Tax Credit For Hiring New Employees Or Raising The Salaries Of Existing Employees And Proposed Extending 100 Percent Expensing In 2012 For All Businesses. “The president called for passage of proposed legislation that would provide a 10 percent income tax credit for firms that create new jobs or increase wages in 2012 and extends 100 percent expensing in 2012 for all businesses.” [RTT News, 5/16/12]President Obama Has Not Burdened Businesses With TaxesBUSINESS TAXES HAVE AVERAGED A LOWER SHARE OF GDP UNDER PRESIDENT OBAMA, WHO CUT TAXES FOR SMALL BUSINESSES 18 TIMESWashington Post’s Ezra Klein: Under President Obama, Taxes On Business Have Averaged A Lower Share Of GDP Than The Average Share Of GDP Since 1950. “Since 1950, corporate tax receipts have averaged 2.7 percent of GDP. In the Obama years, they’ve averaged 1.16 percent of GDP. Some of that, of course, is a consequence of the recession. But some of it is a consequence of policies the Obama administration has proposed and passed. The original stimulus included billions in tax cuts for businesses, including allowing businesses to write off 50 percent of the cost of any depreciable capital purchases — think tractors and wind turbines — they made in 2009. In 2010, the Obama administration upped that to 100 percent…Going forward, the Obama administration’s budget envisions corporate tax receipts rebounding to about 2.4 percent of GDP — again, beneath their historical average.” [Ezra Klein, Washington Post, 6/11/12]President Obama Has Signed 18 Tax Cuts To Support Small Business Growth. “To date, the President has supported 18 direct tax breaks that bolster small business growth. In September 2010, he signed the Small Business Jobs Act, which included eight new small business tax cuts that, among other forms of tax relief, extended accelerated bonus depreciation for two million businesses, making investment and growth more affordable; made investments in one million small firms eligible for zero capital gains taxes; and allowed two million self-employed Americans to deduct their health insurance costs when calculating their self-employment taxes.” [White House National Economic Council, May 2012]The Washington Post’s Ezra Klein: Corporate Taxes Are At All-Time Lows And Corporate Profits Are Near All-Time Highs. “If there’s been serious distress from these policies, it’s been hard to detect in corporate bottom lines. After taxes, corporate profits amounted to 6.9 percent of GDP in 2010 — their highest level since 1966… And it speaks to the underlying reality of this recovery: Corporate taxes are near all-time lows and corporate profits are near all-time highs. That’s a mighty odd outcome for an administration that supposedly sees the existence of private businesses as an unpleasant side effect of the government’s need for tax revenues, don’t you think?” [Ezra Klein, Washington Post, 6/11/12]2011 Tax Revenues As A Percentage Of GDP?Totaled 14.8 Percent, The Lowest Level Since 1950, And The Effect Corporate Tax Rate In FY2011 Was The Lowest In At Least 40 Years. “2011 tax revenues as a percentage of GDP?totaled 14.8 percent, the lowest level since 1950. According to a 2012?report?issued by the Congressional Budget Office, the average federal tax rate for all households was 17.4 percent, a record low for the 30 year window analyzed in the study.? The effective corporate tax rate in fiscal year 2011 stood at 12.1 percent, the lowest level in at least 40 years.” [CBS, 10/1/12]President Obama Cut Taxes For Small Businesses 18 TimesPRESIDENT OBAMA CUT TAXES FOR SMALL BUSINESSES 18 TIMESTEMPORARY INCREASE IN LIMITATIONS ON EXPENSING OF CERTAIN DEPRECIABLE BUSINESS ASSETSAmerican Recovery And Reinvestment Act (Sec.1202, Page 221) [PL 110-5, signed 02/17/09]“The Recovery Act Increased The Maximum Amount That Small Businesses Could Expense – Which Otherwise Would Have Been $125,000 – To $250,000 For 2009.” [Small Business Administration Fact Sheet, accessed 3/29/2012]FIVE YEAR CARRYBACK OF OPERATING LOSSES OF SMALL BUSINESSESAmerican Recovery And Reinvestment Act (Sec.1211, Page 221) [PL 110-5, signed 02/17/09]The Recovery Act Extended The Net Operating Loss Carryback Period From 2 Years Up To 5 Years For Eligible Small Businesses. “The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act)1 became law on February 17, 2009. It included a provision to extend the Net Operating Loss (NOL) carryback period from 2 years to up to 5 years for eligible small businesses. The intention was to provide relief for small businesses suffering current economic hardships by allowing them to recover taxes paid in previous years. This change applied to individual and business filers as long as an NOL could be claimed on their return.” [Treasury Inspector General For Tax Administration, 06/14/10]EXCLUSION OF 75% OF SMALL BUSINESS CAPITAL GAINS FROM TAXESAmerican Recovery And Reinvestment Act (Sec.1241, Page 228) [PL 110-5, signed 02/17/09]“The Recovery Act Excluded 75 Percent Of Capital Gains From The Sale Of Certain Small Business Investments Held More Than Five Years.” [Small Business Administration Fact Sheet, accessed 3/29/2012]DECREASED REQUIRED ESTIMATED TAX PAYMENTS IN 2009 FOR CERTAIN SMALL BUSINESSESAmerican Recovery And Reinvestment Act (Sec.1212, Page 193) [PL 110-5, signed 0217/09]The Recovery Act Reduced Estimated Tax Payments For Small Business From 110 Percent To 90 Percent In 2009. “Normally, small businesses have to pay 110 percent of their previous year’s taxes in estimated taxes. The Recovery Act permits small businesses to reduce their estimated payments to 90 percent of the previous year’s taxes.” [Washington State Recovery Act Website, accessed 3/29/2012]TEMPORARY REDUCTION IN RECOGNITION PERIOD FOR BUILT-IN GAINS TAX American Recovery And Reinvestment Act (Sec.1251, Page 228) [PL 110-5, signed 02/17/09]The Recovery Act Reduces The Holding Period For Corporations Converting To S Corporations From Ten To Seven Years For Sales Occurring In 2009 And 2010. “Under current law, if a taxable corporation converts into an S corporation, the conversion is not a taxable event. However, following such a conversion, an S corporation must hold its assets for ten years in order to avoid a tax on any built-in gains that existed at the time of the conversion. The Recovery Act temporarily reduces this holding period from ten years to seven years for sales occurring in 2009 and 2010.” [Washington State Recovery Act Website, accessed 3/29/2012]SPECIAL ALLOWANCE FOR CERTAIN PROPERTY ACQUIRED DURING 2009American Recovery And Reinvestment Act (Sec.1201, Page 219) [PL 110-5, signed 02/17/09]“The Recovery Act Allowed Businesses To Write Off The Cost Of Their Investments More Quickly By Allowing Up To 50 Percent Deductions In The First Year For Investments Made In 2009.” [Small Business Administration, accessed 3/30/2012]PAYROLL TAX FORGIVENESS FOR HIRING UNEMPLOYED WORKERS Hiring Incentives To Restore Employment Act Of 2010 (Section 101, Page 72) [PL 111-147, signed 3/18/2010]Under the HIRE Act, Employers Who Hire Unemployed Workers In 2010 Could Qualify For A 6.2 Percent Payroll Tax Incentive, Effectively Exempting Them From Their Share Of Social security Taxes On Wages Paid To These Employees After March 18, 2010. “Two new tax benefits are now available to employers hiring workers who were previously unemployed or only working part time. These provisions are part of the Hiring Incentives to Restore Employment (HIRE) Act enacted into law today. Employers who hire unemployed workers this year (after Feb. 3, 2010 and before Jan. 1, 2011) may qualify for a 6.2-percent payroll tax incentive, in effect exempting them from their share of Social Security taxes on wages paid to these workers after March 18, 2010. This reduced tax withholding will have no effect on the employee’s future Social Security benefits, and employers would still need to withhold the employee’s 6.2-percent share of Social Security taxes, as well as income taxes. The employer and employee’s shares of Medicare taxes would also still apply to these wages.” [IRS Fact Sheet, 3/18/2010]CREDIT FOR EMPLOYEE HEALTH INSURANCE EXPENSES OF SMALL BUSINESSESPatient Protection And Affordable Care Act (Section 1421, Page 119) [PL 111-148, signed 3/23/2010]The Small Business Health Care Credit Currently Covers Up To 35 Percent Of Small Business’s Health Insurance Costs, And Will Increase To Cover 50 Percent In 2014. “For tax years 2010 through 2013, the maximum credit is 35 percent for small business employers and 25 percent for small tax-exempt employers such as charities. An enhanced version of the credit will be effective beginning Jan. 1, 2014. Additional information about the enhanced version will be added to as it becomes available. In general, on Jan. 1, 2014, the rate will increase to 50 percent and 35 percent, respectively.” [IRS Fact Sheet, 2/14/2012]TEMPORARY EXCLUSION OF 100 PERCENT OF GAIN ON CERTAIN SMALL BUSINESS STOCKSmall Business Jobs Act Of 2010 (Section 2011, Page 51) [PL 11-240, signed 9/27/2010]The Small Business Jobs Act Eliminated Capital Gains Taxes On The Sale Of Certain Small Business Investments Held More Than Five Years. “Capital gains taxes have been fully eliminated on certain small business stock – providing an incentive for key investments in small businesses. The Recovery Act excluded 75 percent of capital gains from the sale of certain small business investments held more than five years. The Small Business Jobs Act went one step further – excluding all capital gains from these investments in 2010 after the passage of the Small Business Jobs Act from taxes.” [Small Business Administration, accessed 3/6/2012]INCREASED EXPENSING LIMITATIONS FOR 2010 AND 2011; CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY TREATED AS SECTION 179 PROPERTYSmall Business Jobs Act Of 2010 (Section 2021, Page 53) [PL 11-240, signed 9/27/2010]The Small Business Jobs Act Of 2010 Increased For 2010 And 2011 The Amount Of Investments That Businesses Would Be Eligible To Immediately Write Off To $500,000 And Raised The Level At Which The Write-Off Phases Out. “The bill increases for 2010 and 2011 the amount of investments that businesses would be eligible to immediately write off to $500,000, while raising the level of investments at which the write-off phases out to $2 million. Prior to the passage of the bill, the expensing limit would have been $250,000 this year, and only $25,000 next year. This provision means that 4.5 million small businesses and individuals will be able to make new business investments today and know that they will earn a larger break on their taxes for this year.“[White House Fact Sheet, 9/27/2010]AN EXTENSION OF 50% BONUS DEPRECIATION Small Business Jobs Act Of 2010 (Section 2022, Page 55) [PL 11-240, signed 9/27/2010]The Small Business Jobs Act Of 2010 Extended A Recovery Act Provision For 50 Percent Bonus Depreciation Through 2010. “The bill extends – as the President proposed in his budget – a Recovery Act provision for 50 percent “bonus depreciation” through 2010, providing 2 million businesses, large and small, with the ability to make new investments today and know they can receive a tax cut for this yearby accelerating the rate at which they deduct capital expenditures. [White House Fact Sheet, 9/27/2010]A NEW DEDUCTION FOR ?HEALTH CARE EXPENSES FOR THE SELF-EMPLOYEDSmall Business Jobs Act Of 2010 (Section 2042, Page 57) [PL 11-240, signed 9/27/2010]The Small Business Jobs Act Of 2010 Created A New Deduction of Health Insurance Costs for Self-Employed. “The bill allows 2 million self-employed to know that on their taxes for this year, they can get a deduction for the cost of health insurance for themselves and their family members in calculating their self-employment taxes. This provision is estimated to provide over $1.9 billion in tax cuts for these entrepreneurs.” [White House Fact Sheet, 9/27/2010]TAX RELIEF AND SIMPLIFICATION FOR CELL PHONE DEDUCTIONSSmall Business Jobs Act Of 2010 (Section 2043, Page 57) [PL 11-240, signed 9/27/2010]The Small Business Jobs Act Changes Rules So That The Use Of Cell Phones Can Be Deducted Without Burdensome Documentation. “The bill changes rules so that the use of cell phones can be deducted without burdensome extra documentation – making it easier for virtually every small business in America to receive deductions that they are entitled to, beginning on their taxes for this year. [White House Fact Sheet, 9/27/2010]AN INCREASE IN THE DEDUCTION FOR ENTREPRENEURS’ START-UP EXPENSESSmall Business Jobs Act Of 2010 (Section 2031, Page 56) [PL 11-240, signed 9/27/2010]The Small Business Jobs Act Temporarily Increases The Amount Of Start-Up Expenditures Entrepreneurs Can Deduct From Their Taxes For 2010 From $5,000 To $10,000. “The bill temporarily increases the amount of start-up expenditures entrepreneurs can deduct from their taxes for this yearfrom $5,000 to $10,000 (with a phase-out threshold of $60,000 in expenditures), offering an immediate incentive for someone with a new business idea to invest in starting up a new small business today. [White House Fact Sheet, 9/27/2010]GENERAL BUSINESS CREDITS OF ELIGIBLE SMALL BUSINESSES FOR 2010 CARRIED BACK 5 YEARSSmall Business Jobs Act Of 2010 (Section 2012, Page 51) [PL 11-240, signed 9/27/2010]The Small Business Jobs Act Of 2010 Allowed Certain Small Businesses A Five-Year Carryback Of General Business Credits. “The bill would allow certain small businesses to “carry back” their general business credits to offset five years of taxes – providing them with a break on their taxes for this year– while also allowing these credits to offset the Alternative Minimum Tax, reducing taxes for these small businesses. [White House Fact Sheet, 9/27/2010]LIMITATIONS ON PENALTIES FOR ERRORS IN TAX REPORTING THAT DISPROPORTIONATELY AFFECT SMALL BUSINESSSmall Business Jobs Act Of 2010 (Section 2041, Page 57) [PL 11-240, signed 9/27/2010]The Small Business Jobs Act Placed Limitations on Penalties for Errors in Tax Reporting That Disproportionately Affect Small Business. “The bill would change, beginning this year, the penalty for failing to report certain tax transactions from a fixed dollar amount – which was criticized for imposing a disproportionately large penalty on small businesses in certain circumstances – to a percentage of the tax benefits from the transaction. [White House Fact Sheet, 9/27/2010]100% EXPENSING FOR CERTAIN BUSINESSES ASSETS IN 2011 Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, And Job Creation Act Of 2010 (Section 401, Page 9) [PL 111-312, signed 12/17/2010]President Obama’s 2010 Tax Deal Temporarily Allowed Businesses To Expense All Of Their Investments In 2011; The Treasury Department Estimated That This Could Generate More Than $50 Billion In Additional Investment In The U.S And Impact 2 Million Businesses. “The largest temporary investment incentive in American history: The bill includes the proposal the President announced in September to temporarily allow businesses to expense all of their investments in 2011. According to the Treasury Department, complete expensing could generate more than $50 billion in additional investment in the U.S. in 2011. The provision will provide a crucial incentive to 2 million businesses to invest and create jobs in the U.S.” [White House Fact Sheet, Dec. 2010]WOUNDED WARRIORS AND RETURNING HEROES TAX CREDITS Vow To Hire Heroes Act Of 2011 (Section 261, page 45) [PL 112-056, signed 11/21/2011]The?Returning Heroes Tax Credit?Is A New Hiring Tax Credit That Will Provide An Incentive For Businesses To Hire Unemployed Veterans. “The?Returning Heroes Tax Credit?is a new hiring tax credit that will provide an incentive for businesses to hire unemployed veterans. Short-term unemployed:?A new credit of 40 percent of the first $6,000 of wages (up to $2,400) for employers who hire veterans who have been unemployed at least 4 weeks. Long-term unemployed:?A new credit of 40 percent of the first $14,000 of wages (up to $5,600) for employers who hire veterans who have been unemployed longer than 6 months.” [White House Fact Sheet, “Returning Heroes And Wounded Warrior Tax Cuts,” 11/21/2011]President Obama Cut Taxes 21 Times For The Middle ClassPRESIDENT OBAMA CUT TAXES FOR THE MIDDLE CLASS 21 TIMESMAKING WORK PAY TAX CREDITAmerican Recovery And Reinvestment Act Of 2009 (Sec. 1001, Page 195) [PL 110-5, signed 02/17/09]The Recovery Act Included The Making Work Pay Tax Credit, Which Provided A Refundable Tax Credit Of 6.2 Percent Of Earned Income Up To $400 For Individuals And $800 For Married Joint Filers. Making Work Pay" Tax Credit (Sec. 1001, Page 195). In tax years 2009 and 2010, the Making Work Pay provision will provide a refundable tax credit of 6.2 percent of earned income up to $400 for individuals and up to $800 for married taxpayers filing joint returns.” [PolitiFact, 2/2/2010]TEMPORARY INCREASE IN THE EARNED INCOME TAX CREDITAmerican Recovery And Reinvestment Act Of 2009 (Sec. 1002, Page 198) [PL 110-5, signed 02/17/09]The Recovery Act Included Increases In The Earned Income Tax Credit. “Increase in the Earned Income Tax Credit (Sec. 1002, Page 198).” [PolitiFact, 2/2/2010]TEMPORARY INCREASE IN THE REFUNDABLE PORTION OF CHILD CREDITAmerican Recovery And Reinvestment Act Of 2009 (Sec. 1003, Page 199) [PL 110-5, signed 02/17/09]The Recovery Act Increased Eligibility For The Refundable Portion Of The Child Tax Credit In 2009 And 2010. “Increased Eligibility for the Refundable Portion of Child Credit (Sec. 1003, Page 199). In 2009 and 2010, families who don’t earn enough to pay income tax would be eligible to claim the $1,000 child credit.” [PolitiFact, 2/2/2010]THE AMERICAN OPPORTUNITY TAX CREDITAmerican Recovery And Reinvestment Act Of 2009 (Sec. 1004, Page 199) [PL 110-5, signed 02/17/09]The Recovery Act Included The American Opportunity Education Tax Credit, Increasing The Hope Scholarship To $2,500. “"American Opportunity" Education Tax Credit (Sec. 1004, Page 199). Increases the Hope Scholarship Credit to $2,500.” [PolitiFact, 2/2/2010]EXTENSION AND INCREASE IN FIRST-TIME HOMEBUYER CREDIT; WAIVER OF REQUIREMENT TO PAYAmerican Recovery And Reinvestment Act Of 2009 (Sec. 1006, Page 202) [PL 110-5, signed 02/17/09]The Recovery Act Extended And Increased The First-Time Home Buyer Tax Credit From $7,500 To $8,000. “Refundable First-time Home Buyer Credit. (Sec. 1006, Page 202). This extended and increased the first-time home buyer tax credit from $7,500 to $8,000.” [PolitiFact, 2/2/2010]SUSPENSION OF TAX ON PORTION OF UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATIONAmerican Recovery And Reinvestment Act Of 2009 (Sec. 1007, Page 203) [PL 110-5, signed 02/17/09]The Recovery Act Included A Temporary Suspension Of Taxation Of Unemployment Benefits. “Temporary Suspension of Taxation of Unemployment Benefits (Sec. 1007, Page 203). This exempts from taxable gross income the first $2,400 of unemployment benefits.” [PolitiFact, 2/2/2010]EXTENSION AND MODIFICATION OF CREDIT FOR NONBUSINESS ENERGY PROPERTYAmerican Recovery And Reinvestment Act Of 2009 (Sec. 1121, Page 208) [PL 110-5, signed 02/17/09]The Recovery Act Included A Tax Credit Of Up To $1500 For Energy Efficient Improvements To Existing Homes. “Tax Credits for Energy-Efficient Improvements to Existing Homes (Sec. 1121, Page 208). This provides up to a $1,500 tax credit for qualified energy efficiency improvements.” [PolitiFact, 2/2/2010]ADDITIONAL DEDUCTION FOR STATE SALES TAX AND EXCISE TAX ON THE PURCHASE OF CERTAIN MOTOR VEHICLESAmerican Recovery And Reinvestment Act Of 2009 (Sec. 1008, Page 203) [PL 110-5, signed 02/17/09]The Recovery Act Included A Sales Deduction Tax For Vehicle Purchases. “Sales Tax Deduction for Vehicle Purchases (Sec. 1008, Page 203). This allows people to write off state and local sales taxes related to the purchase of a new vehicle costing up to $49,500.” [PolitiFact, 2/2/2010]COBRA PREMIUM ASSISTANCEAmerican Recovery And Reinvestment Act Of 2009 (Sec. 6432, Page 348) [PL 110-5, signed 02/17/09]The Recovery Act Included “Premium Credits for COBRA Continuation Coverage for Unemployed Workers.” (Sec. 6432, Page 348).” [PolitiFact, 2/2/2010]ECONOMIC RECOVERY PAYMENT TO RECIPIENTS OF SOCIAL SECURITY, SUPPLEMENTARY SECURITY INCOME, RAILROAD RETIREMENT BENEFITS AND VETERANS DISABILITY COMPENSATION OR PENSION BENEFITSAmerican Recovery And Reinvestment Act Of 2009 (Sec. 2201, Page 336) [PL 110-5, signed 02/17/09]The Recovery Act Included A $250 Payment For Senior Citizens, Disabled Veterans, And Disabled People Living On Social Security Benefits. “Economic Recovery Credits to Recipients of Social Security, SSI, Railroad Retirement and Veterans Disability Compensation Benefits (Sec. 2201, Page 336). This was a $250 payment for senior citizens, disabled veterans and disabled people living on Social Security benefits.” [PolitiFact, 2/2/2010]COMPUTER TECHNOLOGY AND EQUIPMENT ALLOWED AS A QUALIFIED HIGHER EDUCATION EXPENSE FOR SECTION 529 ACCOUNTS IN 2009 AND 2010American Recovery And Reinvestment Act Of 2009 (Sec. 1005, Page 202) [PL 110-5, signed 02/17/09]The Recovery Act Includes A Tax Credit Allowing College Students To Write Off The Expenses Of Computers And Software, Provided It Is For Educational Purposes And Not For Games. “Computers as Qualified Education Expenses in 529 Education Plans (Sec. 1005, Page 202). This allows college students to write off the expense of computers and software, provided it's for educational purpose and not for games.” [PolitiFact, 2/2/2010]CREDIT FOR NEW QUALIFIED PLUG-IN ELECTRIC DRIVE MOTOR VEHICLESAmerican Recovery And Reinvestment Act Of 2009 (Sec. 1141, Page 212) [PL 110-5, signed 02/17/09]The Recovery Act Included A Tax Credit That Would Allow Electric Vehicle Buyers To Write Of 5,000 Of Their Purchase. “Plug-in Electric Drive Vehicle Credit (Sec. 1141, Page 212). Allows purchasers of plug-in electric vehicles to write off up to $5,000 of their purchase (depending on the power of the battery).” [PolitiFact, 2/2/2010]INCREASED EXCLUSION FOR COMMUTER TRANSIT BENEFITS AND TRANSIT PASSESAmerican Recovery And Reinvestment Act Of 2009 (Sec. 1151, Page 219) [PL 110-5, signed 02/17/09]The Recovery Act Allowed Commuters Increased Pre-Tax Transit Benefits And Transit Passes. “Tax Parity For Transit Benefits (Sec. 1151, Page 219). This Relates To An Increased Exclusion Amount For Commuter Transit Benefits And Transit Passes.” [PolitiFact, 2/2/2010]TRADE ADJUSTMENT ASSISTANCE HEALTH COVERAGE TAX CREDIT EXPANSIONAmerican Recovery And Reinvestment Act Of 2009 (Sec. 18999a), Page 309) [PL 110-5, signed 02/17/09]The Recovery Act Included A Health Coverage Tax Credit Expansion. “Health Coverage Tax Credit Expansion (Sec. 1899, Page 309).”[PolitiFact, 2/2/2010]EXTENSION AND MODIFICATION OF FIRST TIME HOMEBUYER TAX CREDITWorker, Homeowner And Business Assistance Act Of 2009 (Sec. 11, Page 6) [PL 111-92, signed 11/6/2009]Extended A Credit For Homes Purchased Or Under Contract By April 30, 2010; Allowing First-Time Buyers To Receive A Credit Of Up To $8,000 And Providing A $6,500 Credit For Families Who Already Own Homes And Wish To Buy A New One. “The Homebuyers Tax Credit is a temporary but important measure to continue economic recovery. Today, the President is signing a one-time extension of the credit for homes purchased or under contract by April 30, 2010. A credit of up to $8,000 will apply to qualifying first-time buyers, and a smaller credit of up $6,500 will now apply to families that have lived in their homes for at least five years and wish to step up to a new home.” [White House Fact Sheet, 11/6/2009]TEMPORARY EMPLOYEE PAYROLL TAX CUTThe Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, And Job Creation Act Of 2010 (Sec. 601, Page 14) [PL 111-312, signed 12/17/2010]The Act Included A 2 Percent Employee-Side Payroll Tax Cut For Over 155 Million Workers. “The agreement reached by the administration and embodied in the Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act includes an about 2%, employee-side payroll tax cut for over 155 million workers – providing tax relief of $112 billion next year.” [White House Fact Sheet, Dec. 2010]EXTENSION OF THE CHILD TAX CREDITThe Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, And Job Creation Act Of 2010 (Sec. 103(b), Page 4) [PL 111-312, signed 12/17/2010] The Act Extended The Child Tax Credit For Two Years With The $3000 Refundability Threshold Established In The Recovery Act; Expected To Impact 10.5 Million Low-Income Families With 18 Million Children. “Child Tax Credit: The $1,000 child tax credit will be extended for two years with the $3,000 refundability threshold established in the Recovery Act. This extension will ensure an ongoing tax cut to 10.5 million lower income families with 18 million children.” [White House Fact Sheet, Dec. 2010]EXTENDED EXPANSION OF THE EARNED INCOME TAX CREDITThe Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, And Job Creation Act Of 2010 (Sec. 103(c), Page 4) [PL 111-312, signed 12/17/2010] The Act Continued An Expansion Of The Earned Income Tax Credit Worth $600 On Average To Families With Three Or More Children; Was Estimated To Benefit 6.5 Million Working Parents With 15 Million Children. “Earned Income Tax Credit: The Recovery Act included an expansion of the EITC worth, on average, $600 in additional assistance to families with 3 or more children. It also helped working married families by reducing the marriage penalty in the EITC. Continuing this tax cut for two years will benefit 6.5 million working parents with 15 million children.” [White House Fact Sheet, Dec. 2010]EXTENSION OF THE AMERICAN OPPORTUNITY TAX CREDITThe Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, And Job Creation Act Of 2010 (Sec. 103(a), Page 4) [PL 111-312, signed 12/17/2010]The Act Extended The American Opportunity Tax Credit For Two Years; Was Estimated To Benefit More Than 8 Million Students. “American Opportunity Tax Credit: The Recovery Act included a new, partially refundable tax credit of up to $2,500 to help students and their families cover the cost of college tuition. This deal fully extends AOTC for two years, ensuring that more than 8 million students will continue to receive this tax benefit to help them afford college.” [White House Fact Sheet, Dec. 2010]EXPANDED HEALTH CARE TAX CREDITTrade Adjustment Assistance Act Of 2011 (Sec. 241, Page 18) [PL 112-40, signed 10/21/2011]The Trade Adjustment Assistance Act Of 2011 Increased The Amount Of The Health Coverage Tax Credit And Expanded The Population Eligible To Receive It. “Legislative Updates:?On October 21, 2011, the President signed the Trade Adjustment Assistance Extension Act of 2011 into law. This bill increases the amount of the Health Coverage Tax Credit and expands the population that is eligible to receive it. The following provisions are effective until?January 1, 2014: Tax Credit Percentage increases from 65% to 72.5% Starting with January 2012 invoices, the Monthly HCTC will pay 72.5% of qualified health insurance premiums, and participants will pay 27.5%. Additional 7.5% Retroactive credit available to monthly HCTC participants: Participants who received the 65% tax credit through the Monthly HCTC in any month from March – December 2011, are eligible to claim an additional 7.5% retroactive credit and can file?Form 8885?with their Form 1040,?U.S. Individual Income Tax Return?to claim this amount.” [IRS Website, 2/24/2012] EXTENSION OF THE PAYROLL TAX CUTMiddle Class Tax Relief And Job Creation Act Of 2012 (Sec.1001, Page 3) [PL 122-096, signed 2/22/2012]President Obama Secured An Extension Of the Payroll Tax Cut Through 2012. “President Barack Obama signed the payroll tax cut extension into law Wednesday, notching an election-year victory and rare bipartisan agreement in the continuing partisan battle over jobs, taxes and debt. The $143 billion measure that Congress passed overwhelmingly on Friday continues the 2 percentage-point reduction in the tax that funds Social Security, a cut begun last year to aid the nation’s struggling economic recovery. It also extends jobless benefits for between 63 weeks and 73 weeks, and averts a big cut in the reimbursements doctors get for treating Medicare patients.” [Associated Press, 2/23/2012]President Obama Supports The Buffett RuleAs One Of Five Principles For Tax Reform President Obama Proposed The Buffett Rule, Which States That No Household Making Over $1 Million Annually Should Pay A Smaller Share Of Its Income In Taxes Than Middle Class Families. “Principles For Tax Reform…(5)Observe the Buffett Rule. No household making over $1 million annually should pay a smaller share of its income in taxes than middle-class families pay. As Warren Buffett has pointed out, his effective tax rate is lower than his secretary’s. No household making over $1 million annually should pay a smaller share of its income in taxes than middle-class families pay. This rule will be achieved as part of an overall reform that increases the progressivity of the tax code.” [Office Of Management And Budget, Joint Committee Report, Sept. 2011]A Survey Found That 68 Percent Of Millionaires, Defined As Those With Investments Of $1 Million Or More, Support Raising Taxes On People Who Earn $1 Million Or More In Income.“Warren Buffett isn’t the only rich guy who wants to higher taxes on the rich. A new survey from Spectrem Group found that 68% of millionaires (those with investments of $1 million or more) support raising taxes on those with $1 million or more in income. Fully 61% of those with net worths of $5 million or more support the tax on million-plus earners.” [Wall Street Journal, 10/27/2011]President Obama Has Consistently Supported Ending The Bush Tax Cuts On Earnings Over $250,000PRESIDENT OBAMA HAS BEEN CLEAR THAT ENDING THE BUSH TAX CUTS ON EARNINGS OVER $250,000 IS NECESSARY AND WILL HELP PAY DOWN OUR DEFICITSPRESIDENT OBAMA SAID IN DECEMBER 2010: “I’M AS OPPOSED TO THE HIGH-END TAX CUTS TODAY AS I’VE BEEN FOR YEARS.? IN THE LONG RUN, WE SIMPLY CAN’T AFFORD THEM”In A Press Conference On The 2010 Tax Deal, President Obama Said “I’m As Opposed To The High-End Tax Cuts Today As I’ve Been For Years.? In The Long Run, We Simply Can’t Afford Them.? And When They Expire In Two Years, I Will Fight To End Them.” “And I understand the desire for a fight.? I’m sympathetic to that.? I’m as opposed to the high-end tax cuts today as I’ve been for years.? In the long run, we simply can’t afford them.? And when they expire in two years, I will fight to end them, just as I suspect the Republican Party may fight to end the middle-class tax cuts that I’ve championed and that they’ve opposed. So we’re going to keep on having this debate.? We’re going to keep on having this battle.? But in the meantime I’m not here to play games with the American people or the health of our economy.? My job is to do whatever I can to get this economy moving.? My job is to do whatever I can to spur job creation.? My job is to look out for middle-class families who are struggling right now to get by and Americans who are out of work through no fault of their own.” [Remarks By President Obama, 12/7/10]PRESIDENT OBAMA SIGNED THE 2010 TAX DEAL TO PROVIDE NEEDED TAX RELIEF TO AMERICAN WORKERS AND THEIR FAMILIESPresident Obama Signed A Bipartisan Tax Deal In 2010, Which Included A Payroll Tax Cut. “The package includes a two-year extension of the Bush-era tax cuts, which are set to expire December 31. It also would extend unemployment benefits for 13 months, cut the payroll tax by 2 percentage points for a year, restore the estate tax at a lower level and continue a series of other tax breaks. The bill, which cleared the Senate 81-19 on Wednesday, passed despite objections from both the left and the right. However, the pending expiration of the lower tax rates dating to 2001 created a deadline that forced both sides to accept provisions they had long opposed.” [CNN, 12/17/10]The Payroll Tax Cut Saves The Average Household Earning $50,000 A Year $1,000 In Taxes Annually, Or $40 Per Pay Period. “If you're an average taxpayer, making $50,000 a year, you'll pay an extra $1,000 in Social Security tax next year. That's about $20 a week, or about $40 a pay period for those who get paid every other week.” [MSN Money, 12/20/2011]President Obama’s Tax Plan Would Ask The Wealthy To Pay Their Fair SharePRESIDENT OBAMA HAS A PLAN TO KEEP MIDDLE CLASS TAXES LOW WHILE ASKING THE WEALTHY TO PAY A LITTLE MORE, ALLOWING US TO REDUCE THE DEFICIT AND INVEST IN AN ECONOMY BUILT TO LASTPresident Obama Proposed Extending Middle Class Tax Cuts For The 98 Percent Of Families Making Less Than $250,000.? “Under the President’s proposal, the 98 percent of American families with incomes of less than $250,000 per year would continue to benefit in full from the income tax cuts expiring at the end of 2012…The President’s proposal and legislation introduced by Congressional Democrats would provide certainty for the 114 million middle class families whose taxes will go up on January 1 if Congress does not act.” [White House National Economic Council, July 2012]The President’s Proposal To Extend The Middle Class Tax Cuts Would Continue All Tax Cuts On Business Income For 97 Percent Of Small Business Owners. “Even using an overly broad definition of small business owner, the President’s proposal to extend the middle class tax cuts would continue all tax cuts on business income for 97 percent of ‘small business owners.’”[White House National Economic Council, July 2012]President Obama Proposed Eliminating Special Tax Breaks And Loopholes For Oil And Gas Companies And The Very Wealthy As Well As Ending The Bush Tax Cuts For Families Making More Than $250,000 A Year. “In the Budget, I reiterate my opposition to permanently extending the Bush tax cuts for families making more than $250,000 a year and my opposition to a more generous estate tax than we had in 2009 benefiting only the very largest estates. These policies were unfair and unaffordable when they were passed, and they remain so today. I will push for their expiration in the coming year. I also propose to eliminate special tax breaks for oil and gas companies; preferred treatment for the purchase of corporate jets; tax rules that give a larger percentage deduction to the wealthiest two percent than to middle-class families for itemized deductions; and a loophole that allows some of the wealthiest money managers in the country to pay only 15 percent tax on the millions of dollars they earn. And I support tax reform that observes the “Buffett Rule” that no household making more than $1 million annually should pay a smaller share of its income taxes than middle-class families pay.” [FY2013 Budget Message Of The President, February 2012]The President’s FY2013 Budget Calls For Investment In Infrastructure, Education, And Manufacturing While Keeping Discretionary Spending Flat. “President Obama will call for new spending on infrastructure, education and manufacturing research, as well as higher taxes on top earners… Officials said the budget would abide by spending caps set by Congress in the August budget deal, keeping discretionary spending levels essentially flat in fiscal 2013. Over the decade, discretionary spending would drop from 8.7% of gross domestic product to 5%, officials said.” [Los Angeles Times, 2/10/12]Center On Budget And Policy Priorities: President Obama’s Budget Would Stabilize The Debt Over The Coming Decade Through “A Balanced Combination Of Spending Cuts And Revenue Increases.”? “If Congress enacted the Obama budget in full?and?its economic assumptions proved correct, the debt would stabilize over the coming decade although, as the White House acknowledges, policymakers would have to subsequently enact significant further deficit reduction to keep the debt stable in future decades. The budget either achieves or approaches this key fiscal target for the coming decade with several trillion dollars in deficit reduction, through a balanced combination of spending cuts and revenue increases.” [Center On Budget And Policy Priorities, 2/16/12]Under Clinton Tax Rates, The US Experienced Record Surpluses And Job GrowthTHE POLICIES OF THE LAST DECADE FAILED, TAKING US FROM RECORD SURPLUSES AND ROBUST GROWTH TO RECORD DEFICITS AND WEAK PRIVATE SECTOR JOB CREATIONTHE U.S. EXPERIENCED RECORD SURPLUSES AND ROBUST UNDER CLINTON-ERA TAX RATESUnder President Clinton, The U.S. Government Saw The Largest Federal Budget Surplus In History. “President Clinton announced Wednesday that the federal budget surplus for fiscal year 2000 amounted to at least $230 billion, making it the largest in U.S. history and topping last year's record surplus of $122.7 billion.” [CNN, 9/27/00]During President Clinton’s Term, The Economy Experienced Its Longest Expansion In History. “What we can say with certainty is that Clinton served as president during the last eight years of a decade-long economic expansion that stands as the longest boom in U.S. history.” [, 7/30/12]Under The Clinton Administration, The United States Added Over 22.7 Million Jobs. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics Current Employment Statistics survey seasonally adjusted employment data, total nonfarm employment stood at 109,726,000 in January 1993. In January 2001, the month President Clinton left office, total nonfarm employment stood at 132,466,000 – an increase of 22,740,000 jobs. [Bureau of Labor Statistics, Accessed 7/27/12]Center On Budget And Policy Priorities: Under Clinton-Era Tax Rates, The Economy Saw Stronger Job Creation And Economic Growth Than That Following The 2001 Bush Tax Cuts.?? “The arguments against allowing the high-end tax cuts to expire on schedule echo those made against President Clinton’s proposed 1993 tax increases, which set marginal rates at the levels to which they are set to return when the Bush rate cuts expire.? Critics claimed at the time that those tax increases would seriously harm economic growth and even send the economy back into recession.? As it turned out, job creation and economic growth proved significantly stronger following the 1993 tax?increases?than following the 2001 Bush tax?cuts.” [Center On Budget And Policy Priorities, 7/19/12]“Small Businesses Generated Jobs At Twice The Rate During The Clinton Years Than They Did Under The Bush Tax Code.”[Center On Budget And Policy Priorities, 7/19/12]RECORD SURPLUSES TURNED INTO RECORD DEFICITS UNDER BUSH ADMINISTRATION POLICIES, AND JOB GROWTH WAS WEAKIn January 2009, The Congressional Budget Office Projected A Nearly $1.2 Trillion Deficit For 2009 And Deficits In Subsequent Years. In its January 2009 Budget and Economic Outlook, the Congressional Budget Officeprojected a $1.186 trillion deficit for 2009 and deficits in subsequent years. [Congressional Budget Office, Table 4, January 2009]White House Office Of Management And Budget Historical Tables Show That The Deficit Had Not Exceeded $1 Trillion Prior To 2009. [White House Office Of Management And Budget, Table 1.1, accessed 9/20/12]Fifty Nine Percent Of The Shift From Surplus To Deficit By 2011 Is Directly Attributable To Bush Administration Policies And Twenty Nine Is Due To Updated Economic And Demographic Shifts, While Only 12 Percent Is Attributable To Obama Administration Policies.?According to the Department of Treasury, in January 2001, CBO projected cumulative surpluses would total $5.9 trillion through 2011. Instead, cumulative deficits have totaled $6 trillion. A U.S. treasury analysis based on CBO data shows that fifty-nine percent of the shift from surpluses to deficits is attributable to Bush administration policies including Bush-era tax cuts, the wars in Iran and Afghanistan, changes to Medicare Part D, and other spending. Twenty nine percent of the shift from surpluses to deficits is attributable to conditions unrelated to legislation, including updated economic and demographic projections. Twelve percent is attributable to Obama administration policies, including the Recovery Act, the December 2010 tax law, and other spending and tax cuts. [U.S. Department Of Treasury Calculations Based On Congressional Budget Office Data, U.S. Department Of Treasury,?2/19/12]According To The Department Of Treasury, Bush-Era Tax Cuts Added $3 Trillion To The Deficit Through 2011. [U.S. Department Of Treasury,?2/19/12]The Bush Tax Cuts Disproportionately Benefited The Wealthy. “The Bush-era tax cuts conferred disproportionate benefits on those at the top of the earnings distribution, exacerbating a trend of widening income inequality. In 2010, the top 1% of earners (i.e., tax filers making over $645,000) received 38% of the breaks in the 2001-08 tax changes; 55% of the tax breaks went to the top 10% of earners (those making over $170,000). The top 0.1% of earners (i.e., making over $3 million) received an average tax cut of roughly $520,000, more than 450 times larger than the share received by an average middle-income family.” [Economic Policy Institute, 6/1/11]Between January 2001 And January 2008, The Economy Lost 646,000 Private Sector Jobs. According to Bureau Of Labor Statistics data, U.S. private sector employment was 111,631,000, and declined to 110,985,000 by January 2009, declining by 646,000 jobs. [Bureau Of Labor Statistics, accessed 9/7/12]President Obama Has Proposed Eliminating Specific LoopholesPRESIDENT OBAMA HAS PROPOSED ELIMINATING UNNECESSARY SPENDING IN THE TAX CODE BY CLOSING SPECIFIC LOOPHOLESPresident Obama Proposed Savings By Closing Loopholes, Including Eliminating A Major Loophole For Hedge Fund Managers, Limiting The Value Of Tax Subsidies For The Highest Income Americans, And Called For Closing Dozens Of Loopholes And Tax Expenditures Through Business Tax Reform.?? “The Administration is aggressively addressing unnecessary spending in the tax code. The FY 2013 Budget proposes hundreds of billions in savings by eliminating other spending through the tax code, including cutting tax breaks for oil companies, eliminating a major loopholes for hedge fund managers, limiting the value of tax subsidies for the highest income Americans, and a range of other provisions. The President also has laid out a framework for business tax reform that calls for closing dozens of loopholes and tax expenditures by eliminating all business subsidies that are not critical to broader growth or fairness, calls for broadening and fundamentally reforming the business tax base, and calls for investing those savings in lowering the corporate tax rate to make America more competitive.” [Building A 21st Century By Cutting Duplication, Fragmentation, And Waste, 2/28/12]Pushback: President Obama Would Raise Taxes On Small Businesses By 40%PRESIDENT OBAMA WOULD CREATE A NEW INCOME TAX CREDIT FOR BUSINESSES THAT HIRE OR RAISE WAGESPresident Obama Proposed A 10 Percent Income Tax Credit For Hiring New Employees Or Raising The Salaries Of Existing Employees And Proposed Extending 100 Percent Expensing In 2012 For All Businesses. “The president called for passage of proposed legislation that would provide a 10 percent income tax credit for firms that create new jobs or increase wages in 2012 and extends 100 percent expensing in 2012 for all businesses.” [RTT News, 5/16/12]FEWER THAN 3 PERCENT OF SMALL BUSINESSES WILL BE AFFECTED BY ALLOWING THE HIGH-INCOME TAX CUTS TO EXPIRE– AND THAT’S TRUE EVEN IF YOUR DEFINITION OF SMALL BUSINESS OWNERS INCLUDES HEDGE FUND MANAGERS AND DONALD TRUMPThe President’s Proposal To Extend The Middle Class Tax Cuts Would Continue All Tax Cuts On Business Income For 97 Percent Of Small Business Owners. “Even using an overly broad definition of small business owner, the President’s proposal to extend the middle class tax cuts would continue all tax cuts on business income for 97 percent of ‘small business owners.’”[White House National Economic Council, July 2012]A Recent Treasury Analysis Found That Only 2.5 Percent Of Small Business Owners Fall Into The Top Two Income Tax Brackets. “A recent Treasury analysis finds that only 2.5 percent of small business owners fall into the top two income tax brackets and that these owners receive less than one-third of small business income.? Moreover, even those small business owners who would be affected by tax increases on high-income households are unlikely to respond by reducing hiring or new investment.” [Center On Budget And Policy Priorities, 4/24/2012]Joint Committee On Taxation: Many Businesses Who Would Be Affected By Ending The Bush-Era Income Tax Rates For The Wealthiest Have Receipts Of More Than $50 Million. “Opponents of this latter aspect of the proposal often note that many small businesses, and a large fraction of small business income, will be adversely impacted by an increase in the top two tax rates. The staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation estimates that in 2011 just under 750,000 taxpayers with net positive business income (three percent of all taxpayers with net positive business income) will have marginal rates of 36 or 39.6 percent under the President’s proposal, and that 50 percent of the approximately $1 trillion of aggregate net positive business income will be reported on returns that have a marginal rate of 36 or 39.6 percent. These figures for net positive business income do not imply that all of the income is from entities that might be considered “small.” For example, in 2005, 12,862 S corporations and 6,658 partnerships had receipts of more than $50 million.” [Joint Committee On Taxation, 7/14/10]The Claim That Allowing Bush Tax Cuts For High-Income People To Expire Rest On A “Broad” And “Misleading” Definition Of Small Business That Would Include President Obama, Mitt Romney, And More than Half Of the Nation’s 400 Wealthiest People. “The claims that allowing the Bush tax cuts for high-income people to expire would seriously harm small businesses rest on an exceedingly broad, and misleading, definition of ‘small business.’ [2]?The definition is so broad, in fact, that under it, both President Obama and Governor Romney would count as small business owners — as would 237 of the nation’s 400 wealthiest people.” [Center On Budget and Policy Priorities, 7/19/12]EVIDENCE SHOWS THAT ENDING THE BUSH-ERA INCOME TAX CUTS FOR HIGH-INCOME PEOPLE WILL NOT AFFECT SMALL BUSINESS HIRINGCenter On Budget And Policy Priorities: Small Business Job Growth Was?Twice As Strong?In The 1990s When The Top Individual Income Tax Rate Was 39.6 Percent As In The 2001-2007 Economic Recovery When The Top Rate Was 35 Percent . “The experience of recent decades also contradicts predictions made when the 1993 budget reconciliation legislation (which instituted?larger?tax rate increases on high-income taxpayers than those now under discussion) was being considered that those rate increases would seriously harm small businesses and economic growth.? Instead, the economy flourished in the 1990s.? As Figure 1 shows, small business job growth was?twice as strong?in the 1990s when the top individual income tax rate was 39.6 percent as in the 2001-2007 economic recovery when the top rate was 35 percent.” [Center On Budget On Policy And Priorities, 7/19/12]Tax Policy Center: “The Effective Tax Rate On Small Business Income Is Likely To Be Zero Or Negative, Regardless Of Small Changes In The Marginal Tax Rates” And “The Marginal Tax Rate Should Have A Minimal Impact On Hiring.” “Those statistics aside, the effective tax rate on small business income is likely to be zero or negative, regardless of small changes in the marginal tax rates.? This is for three reasons.? First, small businesses can expense (immediately deduct in full) the cost of investment. This alone brings the effective tax rate on new investment to zero, regardless of the statutory rate.? Second, if they can finance the investment with debt, the interest payments would be tax deductible, making the effective tax rate negative.? Third, they can deduct wage payments in full, so the marginal tax rate should have minimal impact on hiring.”[Tax Policy Center Blog, 9/19/11]Pushback: President Obama Is Raising Taxes On The Middle ClassPRESIDENT OBAMA DELIVERED ON HIS PROMISE TO CUT TAXES FOR MIDDLE CLASS AMERICANS President Obama Said The Average Middle-Class Family Has Lower Taxes Today Than When He Took Office. “’Now, I know you hear a lot of folks on cable TV claiming that I’m this big tax-and-spend liberal,’ Obama said. ‘Next time you hear that, you just remind the people who are saying it that since I’ve taken office, I’ve cut your taxes… The average middle-class family, your taxes today are lower than when I took office, just remember that.’” [Remarks by the President In Scranton, Pennsylvania, 11/30/11]Bloomberg Headline: “Obama Delivers On Tax Cut Promises” [Bloomberg, 4/17/2012]Center On Budget And Policy Priorities: Federal Taxes On Middle-Income Americans Are Near Historic Lows. “Federal taxes on middle-income Americans are near historic lows according to the latest available data. ?That’s true both for federal?income taxes and?total?federal taxes. Income taxes: ?A family of four in the exact middle of the income spectrum will pay only 5.6 percent of its 2011 income in federal income taxes, according to a new analysis by the Urban Institute-Brookings Institution Tax Policy Center.?Average income tax rates for these typical families have been lower during the Bush and Obama Administrations than at any time since the 1950s, as Figure 1 shows.? (As discussed below, 2009 and 2010 were particularly low because of the temporary Making Work Pay Tax Credit.) Overall federal taxes:??Overall federal taxes — which include income as well as payroll and excise taxes — on middle-income households are near their lowest levels in decades, according to the latest data from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO).” [Center On Budget And Policy Priorities, 4/2/2012]Tampa Bay Times PolitiFact: It Is “True” That Taxes Are Lower For The Average Middle Class Family Than When President Obama Took Office. “Every taxpayer is different, and some ‘middle-class’ Americans may have seen their tax rate or their tax burden go up for one reason or another. But Obama was talking about "the average middle-class family." The changes to the tax code made under Obama and the analyses by the Tax Policy Center show that for the middle 60 percent of the income distribution, both the average tax paid and the average tax rate fell between 2008 and 2011. We rate Obama’s statement True.” [Tampa Bay Times, PolitiFact,12/1/11]: “The Truth Is That Obama Repeatedly?Cut?Taxes” For Families Making Less Than $250,000 A Year. “The latest multimillion-dollar attack ad from Crossroads GPS claims President Obama?broke a promise to not increase taxes for families making less than $250,000 a year. That’s almost entirely false. The truth is that Obama repeatedly?cut?taxes for such families, first through a tax credit in effect for 2009 and 2010, and beginning in 2011, through a reduction in the payroll tax that is worth $1,000 this year to workers earning $50,000 a year. And while it’s true that some tax increases contained in the new health care law would fall on individuals, they have mostly not taken effect yet and are small compared with the cuts the president already enacted. And this ad exaggerates them greatly.” [, 5/17/12] Called The Claim That President Obama Raised Taxes For Families Making Less Than $250,000 Is A “Distortion” And “Dishonest Nonsense.” “The ad — titled ‘Obama’s Promise’— lists several pledges that it claims the president has broken. The worst distortion it contains — one we haven’t addressed in this campaign — is an almost entirely groundless assertion that he broke his often-repeated promise not to raise taxes on persons making less than $200,000 a year, or couples making less than $250,000. The ad shows Obama saying in a 2008 campaign speech, “If you are a family making less than $250,000 a year, you will not see your taxes go up.” Then, to the sound of shattering glass, the narrator says, ‘Broken! Obamacare raises 18 different taxes.’ But that’s dishonest nonsense.” [, 5/17/12]CONTRASTPresident Obama Has Cut Middle Class Taxes, While Romney Would Raise ThemPRESIDENT OBAMA CUT TAXES FOR MIDDLE CLASS FAMILIES BY $3,600 OVER HIS FIRST TERM AND IS FIGHTING TO EXTEND MIDDLE CLASS TAX CUTS FOR 98 PERCENT OF FAMILIES WHILE ASKING THE WEALTHIEST TO PAY THEIR FAIR SHAREA Typical Family Making $50,000 A Year Has Seen Their Taxes Cut By $3,600 Over The Last Four Years Due To The Making Work Pay Tax Credit In 2009 And 2010 And The Payroll Tax Cut In 2011 And 2012. “A typical family making $50,000 a year has seen their taxes cut by $3,600 over the last four years, $800 in each of 2009 and 2010 due to the Making Work Pay tax credit and $1,000 in each of 2011 and 2012 due to the payroll tax cut.” [White House National Economic Council, July 2012]President Obama Proposed Extending Middle Class Tax Cuts For The 98 Percent Of Families Making Less Than $250,000.? “Under the President’s proposal, the 98 percent of American families with incomes of less than $250,000 per year would continue to benefit in full from the income tax cuts expiring at the end of 2012…The President’s proposal and legislation introduced by Congressional Democrats would provide certainty for the 114 million middle class families whose taxes will go up on January 1 if Congress does not act.” [White House National Economic Council, July 2012]President Obama Proposed Eliminating Special Tax Breaks And Loopholes For Oil And Gas Companies And The Very Wealthy As Well As Ending The Bush Tax Cuts For Families Making More Than $250,000 A Year. “In the Budget, I reiterate my opposition to permanently extending the Bush tax cuts for families making more than $250,000 a year and my opposition to a more generous estate tax than we had in 2009 benefiting only the very largest estates. These policies were unfair and unaffordable when they were passed, and they remain so today. I will push for their expiration in the coming year. I also propose to eliminate special tax breaks for oil and gas companies; preferred treatment for the purchase of corporate jets; tax rules that give a larger percentage deduction to the wealthiest two percent than to middle-class families for itemized deductions; and a loophole that allows some of the wealthiest money managers in the country to pay only 15 percent tax on the millions of dollars they earn. And I support tax reform that observes the “Buffett Rule” that no household making more than $1 million annually should pay a smaller share of its income taxes than middle-class families pay.” [FY2013 Budget Message Of The President, February 2012]ROMNEY PROPOSED $5 TRILLION IN NEW TAX CUTS WHICH WOULD SHOWER MILLIONAIRES AND BILLIONAIRES WITH EVEN MORE BENEFITS WHILE RAISING TAXES ON THE MIDDLE CLASS?Center On Budget And Policy Priorities: Romney’s New Tax Cuts Would Cost $4.9 Trillion Over A Decade, On Top Of The Cost Of Extending The Bush Tax Cuts. “The Tax Policy Center estimates that the Romney tax plan would lose about $480 billion in tax revenue in calendar year 2015, beyond the revenues losses inherent in maintaining current policy (such as continuing all of the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts).? Over the 2014-2022 period, that implies a total reduction in revenues of about $4.9 trillion, relative to current tax policy.” [Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 5/21/12]??Reuters Headline: “Romney Tax Plan Helps Rich, Hurts Middle Class-Study.” [Reuters, 8/1/12]?Boston Globe Headline: “Mitt Romney’s Tax Plan Would Offer Big Cuts To Millionaires, Raise Taxes On Middle Class, Brookings Analysts Say.” [Boston Globe, 8/1/12]Washington Post Editorial: The Tax Policy Center Found That Under The Romney Plan “Even If Every Loophole For The Top Brackets Were Closed, There Wouldn’t Be Enough Revenue. The Middle Class Would Have To Pay More.” “The Tax Policy Center (TPC), a joint venture of the Urban Institute and the Brookings Institution, examined Mr. Romney’s claim and found that, even if every loophole for the top brackets were closed, there wouldn’t be enough revenue. The middle class would have to pay more.” [Editorial, Washington Post, 8/21/12]ROMNEY’S TAX PLAN WOULD GIVE MULTI-MILLIONAIRES A $250,000 TAX CUT ON THE BACKS THE MIDDLE CLASS – MIDDLE CLASS FAMILIES WITH KIDS WOULD SEE AN AVERAGE TAX INCREASE OF $2,000 If Romney’s Tax Plan Was Paid For, Families With Kids Who Make Less Than $200,000 Would See An Average Tax Increase Of $2,041. [Tax Policy Center, On The Distributional Effects Of Base-Broadening Income Tax Reform, p. 18, 8/1/12]If Romney’s Tax Plan Was Paid For, The Top 0.1% Would See An Average Tax Cut Of $246,652. [Tax Policy Center, On The Distributional Effects Of Base-Broadening Income Tax Reform, p. 19, 8/1/12]ATTACK6 Studies On Romney’s Plan Being “Revenue Neutral”ROMNEY FALSELY CLAIMED SIX “STUDIES” FOUND THAT HIS PLAN WOULD BE REVENUE NEUTRAL Washington Post’s Glenn Kessler: “Romney Has Countered That “Six Other Studies” Have Found That The Plan Can Be Revenue Neutral, But He’s Wrong About That.” Romney has countered that “six other studies” have found that the plan can be revenue neutral, but he’s wrong about that. Those studies actually do not provide much evidence that Romney’s proposal — as sketchy as it is — would be revenue neutral without making unrealistic assumptions. [Glenn Kessler, Washington Post, 10/3/12]Josh Barro: Romney Claims Six “Studies” Prove His Tax Plan Works, But “Four Of Them Are Blog Posts Or Op-Eds” And Even Then, “None Of The Analyses Do What Romney's Campaign Says: Show That His Tax Plan Is Sound.” “Mitt Romney's campaign says I'm full of it. I said Romney's tax plan is mathematically impossible: he can't simultaneously keep his pledges to cut tax rates 20 percent and repeal the estate tax and alternative minimum tax; broaden the tax base enough to avoid growing the deficit; and not raise taxes on the middle class. They say they have six independent studies -- six! -- that "have confirmed the soundness of the Governor’s tax plan," and so I should stop whining.? Let's take a tour of those studies and see how they measure up. The Romney campaign sent over a list of the studies, but they are perhaps more accurately described as ‘analyses,’ since four of them are blog posts or op-eds. I'm not hating -- I blog for a living -- but I don't generally describe my posts as ‘studies.’ None of the analyses do what Romney's campaign says: show that his tax plan is sound.” [Josh Barro, Bloomberg, 10/12/12]Josh Barro: “The Six ‘Studies’ On Which The Romney Campaign Has Based Its Defense Of Romney's Tax Plan,” “Individually And Collectively They Fail The Task.” [Josh Barro, Bloomberg, 10/12/12]The Atlantic’s Matthew O’Brien: “The 6 Studies Paul Ryan Cited Prove Mitt Romney's Tax Plan Is Impossible.” [The Atlantic, Matthew O’Brien, 10/12/12]ROMNEY FALSELY CLAIMED OTHER “STUDIES” SHOW HE CAN PAY FOR HIS TAX CUTS FOR THE RICH WITHOUT RAISING TAXES ON THE MIDDLE CLASS…Politifact: “Romney Said That Five Studies Show That His Tax Plan Can Cut Rates And Still Bring In The Same Amount Of Money As Today Without Raising Taxes On The Middle Class… We See No More Than Two Independent Studies Out Of The Five Claimed. We Rate The Statement Mostly False.” [Politifact, 9/14/12]…BUT POINTED TO HIS ADVISER, MARTIN FELDSTEIN WHO CLAIMED THAT UNDER ROMNEY’S PLAN, A COUPLE MAKING A COMBINED $100,000 WOULD SEE A $2,000 TAX HIKERomney Advisor Martin Feldstein Claimed That If Romney Cuts Deductions For Those Making Over $100,000, He Could Raise Enough Revenue To Pay For His Plan. Martin Feldstein, chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers under President Ronald Reagan, professor at Harvard, member of The Wall Street Journal's board of contributors, and advisor to the Romney campaign wrote: “The key question raised by the Romney plan's critics is whether this revenue loss can be offset by broadening the tax base of high-income individuals. It is impossible to calculate the exact effects of the future reforms since Gov. Romney hasn't specified what he would do. But refuting the Tax Policy Center's assertions doesn't require that. It only requires knowing if enough revenue could be raised from high-income taxpayers to cover the $186 billion cost. The IRS data show that taxpayers with adjusted gross incomes over $100,000 (the top 21% of all taxpayers) made itemized deductions totaling $636 billion in 2009. Those high-income taxpayers paid marginal tax rates of 25% to 35%, with most $200,000-plus earners paying marginal rates of 33% or 35%. And what do we get when we apply a 30% marginal tax rate to the $636 billion in itemized deductions? Extra revenue of $191 billion—more than enough to offset the revenue losses from the individual income tax cuts proposed by Gov. Romney.” [Martin Feldstein, Wall Street Journal, 8/28/12]Tax Policy Center: Under The Assumptions In Romney Economic Adviser Martin Feldstein’s Analysis, “Taxpayers With Income Between $100,000 And $200,000 Would Pay An Average Of At Least $2,000 More” Under Romney’s Tax Plan.? “Writing in Wednesday’s Wall Street Journal, Romney economic adviser Martin Feldstein attempts to contradict our finding. Instead, his analysis actually confirms our central result. Under the stated assumptions in Feldstein’s article, taxpayers with income between $100,000 and $200,000 would pay an average of at least $2,000 more. (Feldstein uses a different income measure than we do – see technical note at end.) Taxes would rise on families earning between $100,000 and $200,000 in Feldstein’s analysis because he considers a tax reform that would completely eliminate itemized deductions for taxpayers with income above $100,000. In 2009, taxpayers earning between $100,000 and $200,000 claimed more than half of these itemized deductions. Eliminating itemized deductions would raise more in taxes from people in this group than they would save from the rate reductions and other specified features of Governor Romney’s plan.” [Tax Policy Center, Tax Vox blog, 8/30/12]…AND POINTED TO PRINCETON UNIVERSITY’S HARVEY ROSEN – WHO, LIKE FELDSTEIN, ADMITS THAT A FAMILY MAKING A COMBINED $100,000 WOULD SEE HIGHER TAXESPrinceton Economist Harvey Rosen Estimated Romney Could Pay For His Tax Cuts For The Wealthy If He “Eliminates The Most Widely Used Deductions By Taxpayers Earning More Than $100,000 A Year” – Including Mortgage Interest And Charitable Deductions. “Mitt Romney says he can lower income-tax rates by 20 percent without costing the U.S. government revenue and without making the middle class carry a bigger share of the tax load. He’s right -- assuming that Congress eliminates the most widely used deductions by taxpayers earning more than $100,000 a year, says Harvey Rosen, an economics professor at Princeton University whose study Romney cites as evidence that his plan is viable. The Republican presidential candidate has refused to say which tax breaks he would eliminate. Rosen’s illustration abolishes those for home mortgage interest payments, employer- provided health insurance, state and local taxes, charitable donations and the unrealized increase in the value of life- insurance policies for households with six-figure incomes…Rosen’s analysis -- and separate studies by the Tax Policy Center and Martin Feldstein, a Harvard University economist and once a top adviser to President Ronald Reagan -- found that households with more than $100,000 in annual income could pay higher taxes, even with Romney’s promise to bring taxes down for middle-income people.’” [Bloomberg, 9/13/12]Romney Would Cut Taxes For The Wealthy, Paid For By Raising Taxes On The Middle ClassROMNEY PROPOSED $5 TRILLION IN NEW TAX CUTS, ON TOP OF THE BUSH TAX CUTSCenter On Budget And Policy Priorities: Romney’s New Tax Cuts Would Cost $4.9 Trillion Over A Decade, On Top Of The Cost Of Extending The Bush Tax Cuts. “The Tax Policy Center estimates that the Romney tax plan would lose about $480 billion in tax revenue in calendar year 2015, beyond the revenues losses inherent in maintaining current policy (such as continuing all of the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts).? Over the 2014-2022 period, that implies a total reduction in revenues of about $4.9 trillion, relative to current tax policy.” [Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 5/21/12]??Washington Post’s Glenn Kessler: “The $5 Trillion Figure Comes From The Fact That Romney Has Proposed To Cut Tax Rates By 20 Percent And Eliminate The Estate Tax And Alternative Minimum Tax. The Nonpartisan Tax Policy Center Says That Would Reduce Tax Revenue By Nearly $500 Billion In 2015, Or About $5 Trillion Over 10 Years.” [Washington Post Fact Checker, Glenn Kessler, 10/4/12]Politico Fact Check: Romney’s Tax Cuts “Would Indeed Total Almost $5 Trillion Over 10 Years.”?[Politico, 10/4/12]Politifact: “Romney Wants A 20-Percent Across-The-Board Tax Cut For All Taxpayers, Which On Its Own Would Total $5 Trillion Over 10 Years.” [Politifact, 10/15/12]ROMNEY’STAX PLAN WOULD RAISE TAXES ON THE MIDDLE CLASS TO PAY FOR TAX CUTS FOR THE WEALTHYWashington Post Editorial: The Tax Policy Center Found That Under The Romney Plan “Even If Every Loophole For The Top Brackets Were Closed, There Wouldn’t Be Enough Revenue. The Middle Class Would Have To Pay More.” “The Tax Policy Center (TPC), a joint venture of the Urban Institute and the Brookings Institution, examined Mr. Romney’s claim and found that, even if every loophole for the top brackets were closed, there wouldn’t be enough revenue. The middle class would have to pay more.” [Editorial, Washington Post, 8/21/12]If Romney’s Tax Plan Was Paid For, Families With Kids Who Make Less Than $200,000 Would See An Average Tax Increase Of $2,041. [Tax Policy Center, On The Distributional Effects Of Base-Broadening Income Tax Reform, p. 18, 8/1/12]If Romney’s Tax Plan Was Paid For, The Top 0.1% Would See An Average Tax Cut Of $246,652. [Tax Policy Center, On The Distributional Effects Of Base-Broadening Income Tax Reform, p. 19, 8/1/12]The Atlantic’s Matthew O’Brien: “Romney's Plan Only Works If He Cuts Out The Tax Cuts For The Rich, Raises Taxes On The Middle Class, Or Explodes The Deficit.” [The Atlantic, Matthew O’Brien, 10/12/12]ROMNEY’S TAX CUTS WOULD REQUIRE DEEP CUTS TO POPULAR TAX BENEFITS Tax Policy Center: Assuming Romney Pays For His Tax Plan By Cutting Deductions Would Put On The Table Provisions Like Mortgage Interest, Child, And Charitable Contributions. From a Tax Policy Center analysis of Romney’s tax plan: “Given these assumptions, it may be useful to point out which tax expenditures we are assuming are ‘on the table’: employer provided health insurance and fringe benefits; the partial exclusion of social security benefits; above-the-line deductions like moving expenses; education-related benefits and tax credits; the deductions for medical expenses, state and local taxes, mortgage interest, and charitable contributions; child- and dependent-related tax credits like the child care credit, earned income tax credit, and child tax credit; and other items listed in the appendix.” [Tax Policy Center, On The Distributional Effects Of Base-Broadening Income Tax Reform, 8/1/12]ROMNEY WOULD RAISE TAXES ON THE MIDDLE CLASS, ON TOP OF SLASHING INVESTMENTSCenter For American Progress Action Fund Report: Under Romney’s Proposed Economic Policies, Taxes For Middle Class Families Would Go Up, And They Would “Suffer From The Effects Of Damaging Cuts To Some Basic Government Services.” “Imagine a typical middle-class family: a married couple with two kids, pulling in $60,000 in annual income. How would they fare under Gov. Romney’s proposed economic policies? For one thing, their taxes would go up. For Gov. Romney to meet his revenue target, he’d have to drastically reduce the value of a variety of tax benefits that help reduce this family’s income tax bill at the end of the year. These include the home mortgage interest deduction and the exclusion of employer-provided health care benefits. The reduction in these types of tax benefits necessary to meet Gov. Romney’s stated goal would more than offset any benefit the family receives from his lower tax rates. Our typical middle-class family would also suffer from the effects of damaging cuts to some basic government services. Law enforcement grants, education funding, road repair, transportation security, and food and drug safety inspections would all be cut in a Romney administration.” [Center For American ProgressAction Fund, The Romney Economic Agenda and Its Effect on the Middle Class and Growth, p. 41, July 2012]The New Republic’s Johnathan Cohn: “Romney Isn't Proposing To Raise Taxes On Everybody. He's Proposing To Raise Them On The Poor And Middle Class, While Reducing Them For The Rich” And “Even As Romney Is Proposing To Taxes On Most Americans, He Is Proposing To Cut Programs On Which Most Americans Rely.” “For some time, Mitt Romney has been promising to reduce income tax rates and then pay for these cuts by closing loopholes. But he's never specified which loopholes he'd close and now we know why. A new analysis from the Brookings Institution suggests that, in order to lower tax rates without increasing the deficit, Romney would have to close loopholes that benefit middle-class Americans as well as the wealthy. The end result, if I'm reading the report correctly, would be lower taxes for the wealthiest 5 percent of Americans but higher taxes on everybody else… For the record, reducing or eliminating tax breaks like the home interest mortgage deduction is a perfectly worthy idea, even if it means the middle class pay higher taxes. In the long run, most if not all of us need to pay more taxes. But Romney isn't proposing to raise taxes on everybody. He's proposing to raise them on the poor and middle class, while reducing them for the rich.? Keep in mind that, even as Romney is proposing to taxes on most Americans, he is proposing to cut programs on which most Americans rely. His proposal to cap federal spending at 20 percent of gross domestic product, with a fifth of that set aside for defense spending, would inevitably require dramatic cuts to Medicare, Medicaid, and other vital public services.” [Johnathan Cohn, The New Republic, 8/1/12]ROMNEY WOULD CUT THE CORPORATE TAX RATE, COSTING $1 TRILLIONRomney’s Tax Plan Would Cut Corporate Tax From 35 Percent To 25 Percent. “At the corporate level, the Romney plan would make two major changes: 1) reduce the corporate income tax rate from 35 to 25 percent and 2) make the research and experimentation credit permanent, It would also extend for one year the full expensing of capital expenditures and allow a ‘tax holiday’ for the repatriation of corporate profits held overseas. The plan does not specify, however, whether repatriated earnings would face any tax and, if so, at what rate. In the longer run, Gov. Romney would reduce the corporate rate further in conjunction with base broadening and simplification and would move the corporate tax to a territorial system.” [Tax Policy Center, The Romney Plan (updated), 3/1/12]Cutting the Corporate Tax Rate To 25 Percent Would Cost $1.1 Trillion. [Analysis of the 2013 Paul Ryan Budget Plan, Tax Policy Center, 4/9/12]ROMNEY’S TRILLION-DOLLAR CORPORATE TAX CUT WOULD GIVE 90 PERCENT OF ITS BENEFITS TO THE LARGEST 0.6 PERCENT OF CORPORATIONS ??Source: ?IRS Statistics of Income, Corporation Data By Size, accessed 5/29/12Romney’s $17,000 Deduction Cap Would Raise Taxes On The Middle Class And Wouldn’t Cover The Cost Of His Tax CutsROMNEY SUGGESTED CAPPING DEDUCTIONS AT $17,000 – WHICH WOULD STILL RAISE TAXES ON THE MIDDLE CLASS, AND WOULDN’T EVEN COVER THE COST OF HIS TAX PLANWhen Asked For Specifics On His Tax Plan, Romney Said “For Instance As An Option You Could Say Everybody’s Gonna Get Up To A $17,000 Deduction And You Can Use Your Charitable Deduction Or Your Home Mortgage Deduction Or Others – A Healthcare Deduction, And You Can Fill That Bucket If You Will, The$17,000 Bucket That Way.” [KDVR (Denver, CO), 10/1/12]Ezra Klein: Romney’s $17,000 Deduction Cap Proposal “Is Not Nearly So Progressive” As The Tax Policy Center Analysis That Showed Romney Would Have To Raise Taxes On The Middle Class To Pay For His Tax Cuts, “Which Means It Does Imply A Net Tax Increase On Those Making Less Than $200,000 And A Net Tax Cut On Those Making More Than $200,000.” “Ah, now we’re getting somewhere. ABC News reports that Mitt Romney told Denver’s Fox affiliate that ‘one option’ he was considering to pay for his tax plan was to give everyone up to $17,000 in deductions, but no more than that…It’s also very difficult to see how Romney achieves his goal to keep the plan distributionally neutral using this policy. Remember that when the Tax Policy Center looked at Romney’s rate cuts, they went “top-down,” meaning they eliminated every dollar of deductions for people making more than $200,000 before eliminating any dollar of deductions for people making less than $200,000 — and they still couldn’t make the policy as progressive as the current system. This idea, while it hits the rich harder than it hits the poor, is not nearly so progressive, which means it does imply a net tax increase on those making less than $200,000 and a net tax cut on those making more than $200,000.” [Wonkblog, Washington Post, 10/2/12]Talking Points Memo: Romney’s Proposal To Cap Deductions At $17,000 “Would Hit High Net-Worth People Hardest, It Would Still Require Raising Taxes On Some Middle Class Americans To Cover The Cost Of His Proposal To Cut Everyone’s Tax Rates By 20 Percent.” “Under pressure to provide more details about his tax reform proposal, Mitt Romney floated an idea Tuesday to help fill a revenue hole in his plan. ‘As an option you could say everybody’s going to get up to a $17,000 deduction; and you could use your charitable deduction, your home mortgage deduction, or others — your healthcare deduction. And you can fill that bucket, if you will, that $17,000 bucket that way,’ Romney told a Fox affiliate in Denver. ‘And higher income people might have a lower number.’ In other words, cap the total amount individuals can benefit from tax loopholes. But while some tax policy experts like the idea in principle it suffers from at least one big political problem: though it would hit high net-worth people hardest, it would still require raising taxes on some middle class Americans to cover the cost of his proposal to cut everyone’s tax rates by 20 percent.” [Talking Points Memo, 10/2/12]Tax Policy Center’s Howard Gleckman: “In Order For [Romney] To Cover The Cost Of His Tax Cut Without Adding To The Deficit, He’d Have To Find A Way To Raise Taxes On Middle Income People Or People Making Less Than $200,000 A Year.” [Talking Points Memo, 10/2/12]Tax Policy Center’s William Gale Estimated Romney’s $17,000 Deduction Cap Proposal Would Raise $1-$2 Trillion In Revenue, Though Romney’s Tax Cuts Would Cost $5 Trillion. “Ah, now we’re getting somewhere. ABC News reports that Mitt Romney told Denver’s Fox affiliate that ‘one option’ he was considering to pay for his tax plan was to give everyone up to $17,000 in deductions, but no more than that… William Gale, of the Tax Policy Center, says the net revenue would likely be in the $1-$2 trillion range, while Romney’s rate cuts are in the $5 trillion range, though he cautions that that’s just a guess based on Romney’s description of the idea.” [Wonkblog, Washington Post, 10/2/12]EVEN A HIGHER CAP WOULDN’T FULFILL ROMNEY’S PROMISES – HE WOULD NOT RAISE ENOUGH REVENUE TO PAY FOR HIS TAX CUTSRomney’s Proposals To Cap Deductions At $25,000 Or $50,000 “Runs Counter” To His “Promise To Pay For Tax Rate Cuts By Eliminating Tax Breaks For The Wealthy” Because It Would “Produce Less Revenue To Offset Romney’s Tax Cuts, Raising More Questions About How He Could Feasibly ‘Broaden The Base By Lowering Rates.’” “On CNN on Tuesday, Romney said that one possible way to execute his tax plan ‘would be to have a total cap number [for deductions]. It could be $25,000 or $50,000, and people could put whatever deduction in that total cap they’d like.’ Raising the cap to $25,000 or $50,000 solves one potential problem with his initial proposal, but it exacerbates the other. The higher cap would help Romney’s plan avoid the problem of burdening middle-class families. In 2011, the average total deduction was $25,769, with the bottom 90 percent of households averaging significantly below that level, according to the Tax Policy Center. But raising the deduction would exempt many high-income households as well, which runs counter to Romney’s promise to pay for tax rate cuts by eliminating tax breaks for the wealthy. On average, even the top 10 to 20 percent of households who itemized their taxes deducted $23,498 in 2011, falling below the $25,000 cap. And if the deduction cap were as high as $50,000, as Romney suggested, many taxpayers in the top 1 percent to 5 percent of Americans who itemized wouldn’t be affected either: On average, they deducted $43,208 from their taxes, the TPC calculates. And while it would spare more households from pain, a higher deduction cap would also produce less revenue to offset Romney’s tax cuts, raising more questions about how he could feasibly ‘broaden the base by lowering rates.’” [Suzy Khimm, Washington Post, 10/10/12]Romney Refuses To Name Deductions He Would Eliminate, To Pay For His Tax PlanROMNEY HAS NOT NAMED THE TAX DEDUCTIONS OR LOOPHOLES HE WOULD : Romney “Has Steadfastly Refused To Say Which Tax Preferences Would Be Cut Or Reduced” Under His Tax Plan. “Romney has said he would offset the loss of personal income tax revenue (estimated at $360 billion a year by the Tax Policy Center) by reducing tax deductions and credits. And he has said he would do this while making sure that those at the top keep paying the ‘same share of the tax burden they’re paying now.’ But he has steadfastly refused to say which tax preferences would be cut or reduced.” [, 8/3/12]Romney On His Tax Plan: “It Can’t Be Scored Because Those Kinds Of Details Are Going To Have To Be Worked Out With Congress.” Romney:“What I put out in my plan is a series of principles that allow our economy to grow and at the same time maintain a neutral budget impact. And so I haven’t laid out all the details of how we're going to deal with each one of the deductions and exemptions. I think it's kind of interesting for the groups to try and score it because, frankly, it can't be scored because those kinds of details are going to have to be worked out with Congress and we have a wide array of options.” [CNBC’s Squawk Box, 3/7/12]THE TAX POLICY CENTER SHOWED THAT EVEN IF HE ELIMINATED ALL DEDUCTIONS FOR THE WEALTHY HE WOULD HAVE TO CUT DEDUCTIONS FOR THE MIDDLE CLASS BY 58%Tax Policy Center: Assuming Romney Pays For His Tax Plan By Limiting Deductions Would Require Eliminating 58 Percent Of Total Tax Deductions For Households Making Less Than $200,000. “However, on average, after-tax income for taxpayers earning less than $200,000 would need to decrease by 1.2 percent, an effective tax increase of $500 per household. (Revenue neutrality would require eliminating 58 percent of total tax expenditures for these households.).” [Tax Policy Center, On The Distributional Effects Of Base-Broadening Income Tax Reform, p. 6, 8/1/12]ROMNEY OPPOSED CLOSING THE CARRIED INTEREST LOOPHOLERomney Defended The Carried Interest Loophole By Saying, “You Don't Single Out One Kind Of Capital Gain For Different Treatment From Other Types Of Capital Gains.”?When asked about his position on carried interest being taxed at the capital gains rate, Romney said: “If it--if it's actually a capital investment, and it's fairly priced at the time people invest in it, and then it rises in value as a capital gain, then you treat it as a capital gain. If someone turns it into what looks like ordinary income or a bonus, why then, obviously, it's not a capital gain. But to--you don't single out one kind of capital gain for different treatment from other types of capital gains.” [Kudlow Report, CNBC, 1/26/12]ROMNEY’S TAX PLAN MATH IS IMPOSSIBLE BECAUSE HE HAS TAKEN RAISING CAPITAL GAINS TAXES OFF THE TABLEJosh Barro: “Romney Can't Find Enough Tax Preferences To Offset His Across-The- Board Rate Cut -- Unless He Raises Taxes On Earners Making Under $200,000” Because He’s Taken Raising Capital Gains Taxes Off The Table. “While tax rate cuts reduce income tax burdens proportionally, as TPC notes, there aren't enough tax preferences for wealthy people to offset Romney's cuts at the top… There is a large tax preference for the wealthy that does not show up in these statistics: the preferential tax rate on capital gain on dividend income. But Romney has specifically taken that off the table as a means of raising revenue. (For good reason, in my opinion, but it makes the rest of his math impossible.) That’s why Romney can't find enough tax preferences to offset his across-the- board rate cut -- unless he raises taxes on earners making under $200,000. That’s not to say we shouldn’t reduce tax preferences. It is to say that we shouldn't look to their elimination as a way to cut tax rates by 20 percent.” [Josh Barro, Bloomberg, 10/10/12]Ryan Dodged Specifics On Their Tax PlanRYAN DODGED SPECIFICS ON THE ROMNEY-RYAN TAX PLAN, CLAIMING IT WAS TOO COMPLICATED TO EXPLAIN…Ryan Said The Claim That A 20 Percent Across-The-Board Cut In Income Tax Rates Would Cost $5 Trillion Was “Not in The Least Bit True.” WALLACE: “You're the master of the budget, so briefly, let's go through the plan. The Obama camp says independent groups say if you cut those taxes rates for everybody, 20 percent, it costs $5 trillion over 10 years -- true?” RYAN: “Not in the least bit true. Look this just goes to show if you torture statistics enough, they'll confess to what you want them to confess to. That study has been so thoroughly discredited.” [Ryan Interview, Fox News Sunday, Fox News, 9/30/12]Ryan Repeatedly Dodged Questions From Fox News’ Chris Wallace On The Cost Of Tax Cuts In Romney’s Plan. WALLACE: “Well, how much would it cost?” RYAN:” It's revenue neutral. It –“ WALLACE: “No, no. I'm not talking about the -- we'll get to the deductions, but I'm talking –“ RYAN: “No, no.” WALLACE: “-- about the tax rates.” RYAN: “So the cut in tax rates is lower all American taxes rates by 20 percent.” WALLACE: “So how much does that cost?” RYAN: “It's revenue neutral.” WALLACE: “Look, it's not revenue neutral unless you take away the deductions.” RYAN: “That's -- that's—” WALLACE: “And we’re going to get to that in a second. The first half, lowering the tax rates, does that cost $5 trillion?” RYAN: No, no. Look, I won't give you a baseline with these, because that's what a lot of this is about.” [Ryan Interview, Fox News Sunday, Fox News, 9/30/12]Los Angeles Times: “Wallace Unsuccessfully Pressed Ryan Four Times For An Answer On How Much The Tax Cuts Would Cost.” “Wallace unsuccessfully pressed Ryan four times for an answer on how much the tax cuts would cost — a figure he wanted before they went on to discuss what deductions Romney might eliminate to pay for the tax breaks.” [Los Angeles Times, 9/30/12]Ryan: “I’ve Been As Specific As Anybody In Congress About Spending Cuts.” On CNBC’s Kudlow Report, the following exchange occurred: “KUDLOW: ‘Don’t you have to have a spending cut component to make these numbers work? And specifically, what would that spending cut component be? RYAN: ‘Well, yes, I mean, that’s the other side of the coin, which obviously – I’ve been as specific as anybody in Congress about spending cuts.’” [The Kudlow Report, CNBC, 8/23/12]When Asked For A Ballpark Figure On Cuts That Would Be Needed, Ryan Said “That’s What We’re Going To Have To Negotiate With Congress In January.” On CNBC’s Kudlow Report, the following exchange occurred: “KUDLOW: ‘With respect, are we talking about $700 billion in spending cuts in the first term? $800 billion? A trillion? What kind of ballpark number?’ RYAN: ‘We can have a long debate about this. That’s what we’re going to have to negotiate with Congress in January.’” [The Kudlow Report, CNBC, 8/23/12]Ryan: “It Would Take Me Too Long To Go Through All Of The Math” On Romney’s Tax Plan. WALLACE: “You haven't given me the math.” RYAN: “Well, I don't have the -- it would take me too long to go through all of the math, but let me say it this way. You can lower tax rates by 20 percent across the board by closing loopholes and still have preferences for the middle class for things like charitable deductions, for home purchases, for health care. So what we're saying is people are going to get lower tax rates and therefore, they will not send as much money to Washington and they'll keep it and decide for themselves.” [Ryan Interview, Fox News Sunday, Fox News, 9/30/12]…AND HAS RECENTLY “GONE QUIET” ON TAX POLICIESRyan Refused To Say Whether He Wanted To Eliminate The Preferential Tax Rate On Carried Interest, Saying “We Could Get Into An Arcane Argument About The Definition Of Income, But Our Interest Is Not Taxing Capital More.” COOK: “Alright. Let me ask you about one specific here. I’m going to try to pin you down on one that people talk about a lot, at least certainly on Bloomberg. Carried interest, the 15% tax rate on carried interest. Private equity managers, hedge fund managers take advantage? of that. Under a Romney-Ryan administration, should they expect that’s going to go away?” RYAN: “Look, we could get into an arcane argument about the definition of income, but our interest is not taxing capital more. Taxing capital more means less savings in the economy—means less seed-corn for small businesses for economic growth and activity. By taxing—by raising the tax rate on capital, you hurt jobs.” [Ryan Interview, Bloomberg TV, 10/2/12]Los Angeles Times: “Ryan Has Become Adept At Talking Around The One Question That Comes At Him Every Day” – “Which Loopholes And Deductions Would He And Romney Eliminate To Pay For Their Proposed, Across-The-Board 20% Federal Income Tax Reduction?” “Ryan has become adept at talking around the one question that comes at him every day, in interviews and from supporters at town hall meetings: Which loopholes and deductions would he and Romney eliminate to pay for their proposed, across-the-board 20% federal income tax reduction?” [Los Angeles Times, 10/10/12]47 PercentROMNEY: 47% OF AMERICANS ARE OBAMA VOTERS WHO “PAY NO INCOME TAXES” AND BELIEVE THEY ARE “VICTIMS” DESERVING HANDOUTS, AND “I'LL NEVER CONVINCE THEM” TO “TAKE PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY AND CARE FOR THEIR LIVES”Romney: “There Are 47% Of The People Who Will Vote For The President No Matter What… Who Are Dependent Upon Government, Who Believe That-- That They Are Victims, Who Believe That Government Has A Responsibility To Care For Them… These Are People Who Pay No Income Tax. 47% Of Americans Pay No Income Taxes… So My Job Is Not To Worry About Those People. I'll Never Convince Them That They Should Take Personal Responsibility And Care For For Their Lives.” MALE VOICE: “For the past three years, all everybody's been told is, ‘Don't worry. We'll take care of it.’ How are we gonna do it, in two months before the elections, to convince everybody you've gotta take care of yourself?”ROMNEY: “Well, there are 47% of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right? There are 47% who are with him. Who are dependent upon government, who believe that-- that they are victims, who believe that government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they're entitled to healthcare, to food, to housing, to you name it. But that's-- it's an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what. And-- and-- I mean the president starts off with 48%, 49%, 40-- or he-- he starts off with a huge number. These are people who pay no income tax. 47% of Americans pay no income taxes. So our message of low taxes doesn't connect. And he'll be out there talking about tax cuts for the rich. I mean that's what they sell every-- every four years. And-- and so my job is not to worry about those people. I'll never convince them that they should take personal responsibility and care for for their lives.” [Romney Fundraiser, Boca Raton, FL, 5/17/12]Washington Post Headline: “Romney Stands By His Remarks In Leaked Video” [Washington Post, 9/17/12]CNN: “Mitt Romney Said In An Interview Tuesday That Remarks He Made At A Fund-Raiser In May Casting Supporters Of President Barack Obama As Dependent On Government Were An Honest Reflection Of His Campaign’s Message.” [CNN, 9/18/12]ROMNEY’S 47 PERCENT INCLUDE PEOPLE WHO PAY TAXES, SENIORS, MEMBERS OF OUR MILITARY AND WORKING MIDDLE CLASS FAMILIESBill Kristol: A Good Chunk Of The 47 Percent Who Don’t Pay Income Taxes Include Seniors, Lower-Income Americans And Men And Women Serving In Our Military. “It's worth recalling that a good chunk of the 47 percent who don't pay income taxes are Romney supporters—especially of course seniors (who might well ‘believe they are entitled to heath care,’ a position Romney agrees with), as well as many lower-income Americans (including men and women serving in the military) who think conservative policies are better for the country even if they're not getting a tax cut under the Romney plan. So Romney seems to have contempt not just for the Democrats who oppose him, but for tens of millions who intend to vote for him.” [William Kristol, Weekly Standard, 9/18/12]Romney’s Suggestion That 47 Percent Of Americans Refuse To Take Personal Responsibility “Ignores The Fact That Most Of These Households Pay Payroll Taxes For Social Security And Medicare And Some Are Service Members In Combat Zones.” “Mitt Romney painted an inaccurate portrait of the ‘47 percent of Americans [who] pay no income tax’ when he spoke — and was secretly videotaped — at a May fund-raiser depicting almost half the country as Obama-loving ‘victims’ who feel entitled to government handouts. Romney’s statistic accurately approximates the percentage of US households that do not pay federal income taxes. But he went on to suggest that this 47 percent relies on government help and refuses to ‘take personal responsibility’ — an assertion that ignores the fact that most of these households pay payroll taxes for Social Security and Medicare and some are service members in combat zones.? Almost every American adult pays some combination of excise, property, sales, and state or local income taxes.” [Boston Globe, 9/19/12]Washington Post Editorial: Romney’s Believe That 47% Of Americans “Are Dependent Upon Government” Is “Dramatically Out Of Touch With How Hard Most Middle-Class People Work And How Hard They Find It To Make Ends Meet.” “Mr. Romney’s vision of the country, in other words, is a fantasy. He believes that 47 percent of Americans ‘are dependent upon government .?.?. believe the government has a responsibility to care for them .?.?. that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it.’ This is dramatically out of touch with how hard most middle-class people work and how hard they find it to make ends meet. Half of all American households — households, not individuals — earn $50,000 or less, and the official poverty line for a family of four is a meager $23,021.” [Editorial, Washington Post, 9/18/12]JUST MILITARYROMNEY’S 47 PERCENT INCLUDE VETERANS AND SERVICE MEMBERS IN COMBAT ZONESBill Kristol: A Good Chunk Of The 47 Percent Who Don’t Pay Income Taxes Include Seniors, Lower-Income Americans And Men And Women Serving In Our Military. “It's worth recalling that a good chunk of the 47 percent who don't pay income taxes are Romney supporters—especially of course seniors (who might well ‘believe they are entitled to heath care,’ a position Romney agrees with), as well as many lower-income Americans (including men and women serving in the military) who think conservative policies are better for the country even if they're not getting a tax cut under the Romney plan. So Romney seems to have contempt not just for the Democrats who oppose him, but for tens of millions who intend to vote for him.” [William Kristol, Weekly Standard, 9/18/12]Romney’s Suggestion That 47 Percent Of Americans Refuse To Take Personal Responsibility “Ignores The Fact That Most Of These Households Pay Payroll Taxes For Social Security And Medicare And Some Are Service Members In Combat Zones.” “Mitt Romney painted an inaccurate portrait of the ‘47 percent of Americans [who] pay no income tax’ when he spoke — and was secretly videotaped — at a May fund-raiser depicting almost half the country as Obama-loving ‘victims’ who feel entitled to government handouts. Romney’s statistic accurately approximates the percentage of US households that do not pay federal income taxes. But he went on to suggest that this 47 percent relies on government help and refuses to ‘take personal responsibility’ — an assertion that ignores the fact that most of these households pay payroll taxes for Social Security and Medicare and some are service members in combat zones.? Almost every American adult pays some combination of excise, property, sales, and state or local income taxes.” [Boston Globe, 9/19/12]Romney’s Suggestion That Those Who Pay No Income Taxes And Take Services From The Government Are Just “Victims,” Included Combat Troops And Veterans Who Receive Tax-Free Government Benefits. “Luana Schneider is not a freeloader. Bobby Henline isn't dependent on government either, even though he received free medical care after he was catastrophically burned in a bomb blast in Iraq and -- like other severely wounded combat veterans -- received a tax-free $100,000 insurance payout from Uncle Sam. Few Americans receive as much from government as the combat wounded. Their military medical care, from treatment on the dusty battlefield to the exquisitely meticulous surgery and rehabilitation care, is given on a damn-the-cost basis. The Department of Veterans Affairs insurance program pays out a maximum of $100,000 for severe wounds, in addition to disability payments and other assistance. Such largesse seems to be precisely the thing that bleeds away Americans' personal responsibility and ‘fosters government dependency,’ according to GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney. But that view is out of whack with the reality of many of the severely wounded, and other veterans and their families. Although Romney later asserted that he was not referring to veterans or the military, it seems wildly inaccurate to suggest, as he did in a video recorded at a fundraiser in May, that those who take from the government believe they are ‘victims’ and ‘take no personal responsibility for their lives’ because they pay no income taxes.” [Huffington Post, 9/19/12]“The 68,000 U.S. Troops Serving In Afghanistan Today Pay No Taxes On Their Monthly Pay (For Officers, Combat-Zone Pay Is Tax-Exempt Up To $7,834 Per Month)” And “Troops At War Also Pay No Taxes On The Family Separation Pay ($250 A Month) And Imminent Danger Pay ($225 A Month) They Receive While In The War Zone.” [Huffington Post, 9/19/12]2012: “Veterans Will Get $76.3 Billion In Entitlement Payments, Including Disability Compensation And GI Bill Education Assistance -- All Tax-Free.” “The VA doesn't disagree that veterans have earned their benefits, even if they don't pay taxes. This year veterans will get $76.3 billion in entitlement payments, including disability compensation and GI bill education assistance -- all tax-free. More than 8.5 million veterans currently get health care through the VA -- an untaxed benefit -- and 3.5 million vets are receiving untaxed disability payments, according to VA budget documents. The VA is paying to house homeless veterans at a cost of $1.3 billion. Veterans are currently receiving mental health benefits worth $6.2 billion.” [Huffington Post, 9/19/12]The GI Bill Has Allowed 700,000 Veterans To Get Tax-Free Grants To Help Pay For Tuition And Books To Go Back To School. “‘I don't think anyone would consider that wasteful spending or that anyone is leeching off the system,’ said Paul Rieckhoff, who served in Iraq as an infantry platoon leader before founding the Iraq Afghanistan Veterans of America, a nonpartisan organization to support veterans. Thanks to the GI bill, for instance, over 700,000 troops who served in Iraq or Afghanistan have gotten tax-free grants to help pay for tuition and books and go back to school, and thousands are entering college this month, he said. Far from creating a culture of relying on government hand-outs, ‘It's a really good return for the American taxpayers,’ he said.” [Huffington Post, 9/19/12]JUST SENIORSROMNEY’S 47 PERCENT INCLUDE OUR SENIORSDaily Beast’s David Gross: Romney Criticized The “47 Percent” Of People Who Receive Government Benefits – Which Include “People Who Are On Medicare.” “Mitt Romney’s really stuck his foot in it when he declared that the 47 percent of Americans who, because they pay no federal income taxes and receive government benefits, can’t be dislodged from the Democratic column. The statement was wrong in 47 different ways. People who worked all their life and now subsist primarily on Social Security aren’t looking for a handout, and have not demonstrated an unwillingness to be responsible. The same holds for people who are on Medicare. And ditto for all the working poor, who would be paying income taxes if Republicans hadn’t invented and supported the Earned Income Tax Credit. What’s more, plenty of people who do pay income taxes rely on entitlements. Mitt Romney may not need Medicare, but even well-off people in their 60s would be hard-pressed to buy their own insurance.” [David Gross, The Daily Beast, 9/18/12]Kaiser Health Facts: In 2011, There Were 39,132,700 Seniors On Medicare. [Kaiser Health Facts, Distribution of Medicare Beneficiaries by Age, states (2010-2011), U.S. (2011), accessed 10/8/12]New York Times Editorial: By Romney’s Definition, Those Dependent On Government Include “Elderly Americans,” And “Disabled Veterans.” “Gone was the pretense that he will be a president of all Americans. Mr. Romney rather neatly divided the country between the people who matter and the 47 percent he does not care about. To Mr. Romney, that 47 percent consists of people who do not make enough money to be required to pay federal income tax. They are freeloaders, he said, ‘who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it.’ It is not his job, he said, as a candidate nor apparently as president if he is elected, ‘to worry about those people.’ By his definition, those undeserving freeloaders include workers in low-paying, menial jobs (sometimes more than one job) who don’t even earn enough to owe federal income tax. Also included are elderly Americans whose Social Security pensions are too low to be taxed, disabled veterans and people who were maimed on the job.” [Editorial, New York Times, 9/18/12]2011: 56% Of Seniors Did Not Pay Federal Income Taxes. According to the Tax Policy Center, 19,845,000 elderly tax units paid no individual income tax in 2011, which was 55.9% of all elderly tax units. [Tax Policy Center, Table T11-0176, Distribution of Elderly Tax Units that Pay No Individual Income Tax, 7/13/11]2011: Nearly 20 Million Seniors Did Not Pay Federal Income Taxes. According to the Tax Policy Center, 19,845,000 elderly tax units paid no individual income tax in 2011. [Tax Policy Center, Table T11-0176, Distribution of Elderly Tax Units that Pay No Individual Income Tax, 7/13/11]Ryan: Makers vs. TakersRYAN HAS MADE HOSTILE STATEMENTS TOWARD THE POOR AND PEOPLE WHO RECEIVE GOVERNMENT ASSISTANCE, REFERRING TO THEM AS “TAKERS” AND WARNING OF A SOCIAL “HAMMOCK”RYAN CLAIMED THE MAJORITY OF AMERICANS COULD BECOME “TAKERS” AND COMPLAINED THAT 70 PERCENT OF AMERICANS GET MORE BENEFITS FROM THE GOVERNMENT THAN THEY PAY IN TAXESRyan: “70 Percent Of Americans Get More Benefits From The Federal Government Than They Pay Back In Taxes.” “‘Today, 70 percent of Americans get more benefits from the federal government in dollar value than they pay back in taxes,’ Ryan said. ‘So you could argue that we're already past that [moral] tipping point.’” [Huffington Post, 10/2/12]Ryan: “We Risk Hitting A Tipping Point In Our Society Where We Have More Takers Than Makers In Society.” RYAN: “And we risk hitting a tipping point in our society where we have more takers than makers in society. Where we will have turned our safety net into a hammock that lulls able-bodied people to lives of dependency and complacency which drains them of their will and incentive to make the most of their lives.” [Paul Ryan interview, MacIver Institute, 8/2/12]Ryan: “We’ve Become A Nation Of Net Takers Versus Makers.” RYAN: “At the end of the idea, though, here is what I worry about is we’re going to reach two tipping points. The debt tipping point, I just described. CBO shows you what that looks like. But I think there’s more in some of these moral tipping points. And I think the president accelerating this. I think the president’s health care law accelerates this dramatically. And that is, we’ve become a nation of net takers versus makers.” [Ryan speech at American Enterprise Institute, 3/20/12]RYAN HAS REPEATEDLY WARNED OF TURNING THE SAFETY NET INTO A “HAMMOCK” THAT PROMOTES DEPENDENCYRyan: “We Do Not Want To Convert This Safety Net Into A Hammock That Lulls Able-Bodied People Into Lives Of Dependency And Complacency Which Drains Them Of Their Will And Their Intentions To Make The Most Of Their Lives.” RYAN: “We believe the American idea is essentially an opportunity to decide if the safety net--and we believe in a safety net that is there to help people who cannot help themselves, and to be there to help people who are down on their luck get back on their feet. But we do not want to convert this safety net into a hammockthat lulls able-bodied people into lives of dependency and complacency which drains them of their will and their intentions to make the most of their lives.” [Ryan House Floor Remarks, 3/28/12]Ryan Claimed That President Obama’s Rhetoric “Says To People That They're Stuck In Their Station In Life, A Victim Of Circumstances Outside Of Their Control And Only The Government Is Here To Help Them Cope With It.”? RYAN: “And so President Obama is not going to be able to run for re-election on his record because it's a terrible record. And he didn't change tune. He didn't moderate. He stayed hard left. So what does he have left? Not only nothing, he's going to divide the country to distract the country to try and win this election by default.? Hope and change has now become attack and blame. You know what? We're not going to fall for it. We're not going to fall for this kind of rhetoric that says to people that they're stuck in their station in life, a victim of circumstances outside of their control and only the government is here to help them cope with it.”? [Romney Campaign Rally, Manassas, VA, 8/11/12]RYAN SAID THAT “30 PERCENT” OF AMERICANS WANT THE “WELFARE STATE” WHILE ONLY “70 PERCENT” WANT THE AMERICAN DREAMRyan At The American Enterprise Institute: “Seventy Percent Of Americans Want The Upward Mobile Opportunity Society. Only 30 Percent Want What We Would Call The Welfare State.” RYAN: “And that is, we've become a nation of net takers versus makers. You know, [AEI] has thrown out a lot of statistics along with the Tax Foundation that shows -- Arthur, correct me if I'm wrong -- 20 percent of Americans get 70 percent of their income from the federal government, so they're dependent. An additional 20 percent get 40 percent of their income from the federal government, so they're reliant. OK, folks (ph), 70 percent of Americans get more benefits in dollar value from the federal government than they pay back in taxes. Forty-nine percent of Americans don't pay income taxes. And so one could argue that we're already past this tipping point of people growing up in America and seeing that they're not going to be independent, but dependent upon the government and becoming complacent with that state of mind where we atrophy, where we don't reach our potential as individuals. But what Arthur has shown us in his book and his forthcoming book -- he sent me one chapter, I haven't seen the rest of it -- is that we're still a 70/30 country on average. Americans still believe in the American dream. Seventy percent of Americans want the upward mobile opportunity society. Only 30 percent want what we would call the Welfare state.” [Paul Ryan speech, American Enterprise Institute, 3/20/12]Romney Ridiculed The Clinton Doctrine On The DeficitROMNEY RIDICULED THE CLINTON DOCTRINE FOR REDUCING THE DEFICIT Salon:“Romney Actually Ridiculed The Clinton Doctrine For Reducing The Deficit As It Was Implemented.”??[Salon,?5/17/12]Romney: “The Clinton Tax Increase Has Slowed Down The Rate Of The Economic Recovery.” “’My first priority will be reducing federal spending and balancing the budget," [Romney] said in an interview. He also stresses that he would like to see tax rates lowered. To boost jobs, he wants to create enterprise zones in depressed inner cities, enact tax credits for employer-based job training, establish tax-free savings accounts and offer regulatory relief for small businesses. ‘This economy is not as robust as it is being made out to be,’ he said. ‘The?Clinton tax increase?has slowed down the rate of the economic recovery.’” [Washington Times, 10/18/94]Romney: President Clinton And Senator Kennedy Are “The Guys Who Put Together The Biggest Tax Increase In The History Of The Nation.” “Romney?joined Gov.?Weld,?the most popular politician in Massachusetts, for a tour of the Acme Printing Co. here that provided a small Republican counterpoint to the mammoth event orchestrated by President?Clinton?for US Sen. Edward M.?Kennedy?in Framingham. As?Weld?led the cheers of ‘Go, Mitt, Go,’?Romney?labeled?Kennedy and Clinton?‘the guys who put together the biggest?tax increase?in the history of the nation’ and said they were in Massachusetts ‘explaining why they need more of your money.’” [Boston Globe, 10/21/94]Romney Flip-Flopped On Signing A No-Tax PledgeROMNEY FLIP-FLOPPED ON SIGNING A NO-TAX PLEDGE2002: “During The Republican Primary, Romney Refused To Sign A ‘No New Taxes’ Pledge, Even After Prodding From Republican Lieutenant Governor Candidate James Rappaport.” [Associated Press, 10/15/02]ROMNEY AND RYAN PLEDGED TO NOT RAISE TAXES2012: When Asked Whether He Still Agreed With Grover Norquist’s “No New Taxes” Pledge Romney Said “The Answer Is I Do Feel That Way.” Schieffer: You were one of the vast majority of Republicans who signed the pledge that was circulated by the leading anti-tax advocate Grover Norquist. No new taxes under any circumstance. And I remember once back during one of the primaries you were asked if you would agree to one dollar in taxes if you could get ten dollars cut, in spending cuts. And you said at that time, no I wouldn’t even accept that. Do you still feel that way?” Romney: “Well we all felt that way. And the reason is that government at all levels today consumes about 37 percent of our economy.” Schieffer: “But do you still feel that way?” Romney: “Let me go on and explain. The answer is I do feel that way.” [Face the Nation, CBS, 6/17/12]CBS Headline: “Mitt Romney Stands By Anti-Tax Pledge.” [CBS, 6/17/12]Ryan Signed Americans For Tax Reform Pledge Not To Raise Income Taxes, Or Eliminate Tax Deductions Or Credits Without Matching Tax Cuts.?In 2012, Ryan was listed as a signer of the Americans for Tax Reform’s “Taxpayer Protection Pledge,” stating that he opposed any increase in the marginal income tax rate, or net reduction or elimination of deductions and credits, unless matched dollar for dollar by further reducing tax rates. [ATR Pledge, , accessed 10/11/12]Ryan Refuses To Compromise On The Bush Tax Cuts, Holding Middle-Class Tax Cuts Hostage In The ProcessRYAN, ALONG WITH CONGRESSIONAL REPUBLICANS, HAVE VOTED AGAINST EFFORTS TO LET THE BUSH TAX CUTS FOR THE WEALTHY EXPIRE Republicans In Congress Have Been Blamed For Not Taking Action To Extend Middle-Class Tax Cuts Because They Insist On Also Cutting Taxes For The Wealthy. “A standoff with Congress that results in the January expiration of wide-ranging tax cuts would mean 114 million families would see average tax increases of $1,600 next year, the White House says. In a report Tuesday on the tax standoff with Republicans, the White House tried putting a human face on the showdown and shifting the blame to the GOP. ‘So far, the only reason the middle-class tax cuts have not been extended is that Republicans in Congress continue to insist on cutting taxes once again for the wealthiest few,’ the report said.” [Associated Press, 7/24/12]The Hill: “A Report From President Obama’s National Economic Council … Contends The Families Would See Their Taxes Rise By An Average Of $1,600” As A Result Of Congress Not Taking Action. “The White House has launched a new offensive in its fight with congressional Republicans over taxes, arguing 114 million middle-class families will see their taxes rise without action by Congress. A report from President Obama’s National Economic Council released Monday contends the families would see their taxes rise by an average of $1,600 if the George W. Bush-era tax cuts expire as scheduled at the end of the year. The report is the latest effort by President Obama to corner Republicans on taxes.” [The Hill, 7/24/12]Ryan Voted To Extend Bush-Era Tax Cuts For All Income Levels Through 2013, A Bill With Tax Breaks On “Estate Taxes And Taxes On Dividends And Capital Gains, While Letting Certain Breaks For Middle- And Low-Income Taxpayers Expire…” “Voting 256 for and 171 against, the House on Aug. 1 passed a Republican bill (HR 8) to extend Bush-era tax cuts for all income levels through 2013. This contrasts with a Democratic alternative (below) to allow taxes to rise Jan. 1 for single-filers earning above $200,000 and couples earning above $250,000. The GOP bill also differs from the Democratic alternative by preventing increases next year in estate taxes and taxes on dividends and capital gains, while letting certain breaks for middle- and low-income taxpayers expire Jan. 1. These latter breaks, enacted in the 2009 economic stimulus, would expand higher-education tax credits, broaden the availability of child-tax credits for the working poor and expand the earned-income tax credit for the working poor.” Ryan voted for the bill. [Sheboygan Press (Wisconsin), 8/6/12; H.R. 8, Vote 545, 8/1/12]Ryan Voted Against An Alternative Plan To Let The Bush Tax Cuts Expire For The Top Earners, While Cutting Taxes For The Middle-Class. “The House on Aug. 1 defeated, 170 for and 257 against, a Democratic alternative to HR 8 (above) that sought to allow Bush-era tax cuts on incomes above the $250,000 and $200,000 thresholds to expire Jan. 1. This would boost rates for the top 2 percent of taxpayers while generating about $400 billion for the Treasury. Democrats also would extend Bush tax cuts through 2013 for couples with incomes under $250,000 and single filers under $200,000, benefiting 98 percent of taxpayers and costing the Treasury a projected $250 billion in lost revenue for the year. The Democratic plan also would raise capital gains, dividends and estate tax rates next year.” Ryan voted against the bill. [Sheboygan Press (Wisconsin), 8/6/12; H.AMDT.1473?to H.R. 8, Vote 543, 8/1/12]Ryan’s Previous Budget Plan Would Have Cut Romney’s Tax Rate To Below 1%RYAN’S 2010 ROADMAP WOULD ELIMINATE CAPITAL GAINS TAX, REDUCING ROMNEY’S TAX RATE TO LESS THAN ONE PERCENT ABC News Fact Check: “It Is Completely Accurate That Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wisc., In 2010 Proposed Eliminating Capital Gains Taxes, Which Would Have Significantly Reduce Mitt Romney’s Tax Rate, To Less Than One Percent.” [ABC News Fact Check, 8/18/12]ABC News Fact Check:Ryan’s “Roadmap For America’s Future” Specifically Notes Elimination Of The Capital Gains Tax. “You can see that right HERE on the ‘ROADMAP FOR AMERICA’S FUTURE’: where it notes that Ryan proposes a budget that ‘promotes saving by eliminating taxes on interest, capital gains, and dividends; also eliminates the death tax.’” [ABC News Fact Check, 8/18/12]Cost Of The Bush Tax Cuts For The Rich120,000 People Making An Average Of $8 Million A Year Would Get $532 Billion Under An Extension Of The High-Income Bush Tax CutsNearly 120,000 People – Who Earn An Average Of $8 Million – Would Get 55% Of The Benefits Of An Extension Of The High-Income Bush Tax Cuts. According to the Tax Policy Center, the top 0.1% -- 117,000 tax cuts – earn an average of $8,392,360, and would receive 55.2% of the benefits of an extension of the high-income Bush tax cuts. [Tax Policy Center, T12-0153 – Extend 2001-10 Tax Cuts Except for Certain High-Income Provisions Individual Income and Estate Tax Provisions Baseline: Current Policy Distribution of Federal Tax Change by Income Percentile, 2013, Detail Table, 7/11/12]Extending The High-Income Bush Tax Cuts Would Cost $968 Billion Over A Decade. “Allow the 2001 and 2003 High-Income Tax Cuts to Expire and Return the Estate Tax to 2009 Parameters. The tax cuts for those with household income above $250,000 per year passed in the Bush Administration were unfair and unaffordable at the time they were enacted and remain so today. In December 2010, congressional Republicans insisted on extending them through 2012 and threatened to allow taxes to increase on middle-class families if the Administration did not agree. Not extending the middle-class tax cuts would have hurt our nascent economic recovery, and would have imposed an enormous burden on working families; as a result, the Administration agreed to extend them to 2012 as part of a deal that also included immediate support for the economy in the form of a payroll tax cut and an extension of unemployment insurance. The Administration remains opposed to the extension of these high-income tax cuts past 2012 and supports the return of the estate tax exemption and rates to 2009 levels. This would reduce the deficit by $968 billion over 10 years.” [Fiscal year 2013 Budget, Office of Management & Budget, p. 39]People Making $1 Million A Year Would Get $745 Billion Under An Extension Of The High-Income Bush Tax CutsMillionaires Would Get 77% Of The Benefits Of An Extension Of The High-Income Bush Tax Cuts. [Tax Policy Center, T12-0155 - Extend 2001-10 Tax Cuts Except for Certain High-Income Provisions Baseline: Current Policy Share of Total Federal Tax Change by AGI levels, 7/11/12]Extending The High-Income Bush Tax Cuts Would Cost $968 Billion Over A Decade. “Allow the 2001 and 2003 High-Income Tax Cuts to Expire and Return the Estate Tax to 2009 Parameters. The tax cuts for those with household income above $250,000 per year passed in the Bush Administration were unfair and unaffordable at the time they were enacted and remain so today. In December 2010, congressional Republicans insisted on extending them through 2012 and threatened to allow taxes to increase on middle-class families if the Administration did not agree. Not extending the middle-class tax cuts would have hurt our nascent economic recovery, and would have imposed an enormous burden on working families; as a result, the Administration agreed to extend them to 2012 as part of a deal that also included immediate support for the economy in the form of a payroll tax cut and an extension of unemployment insurance. The Administration remains opposed to the extension of these high-income tax cuts past 2012 and supports the return of the estate tax exemption and rates to 2009 levels. This would reduce the deficit by $968 billion over 10 years.” ?[Fiscal year 2013 Budget, Office of Management & Budget, p. 39]Romney Has Said He Would Cut Taxes For The WealthiestROMNEY SAID HE WOULD CUT EVERYONE’S TAXES BY 20 PERCENT, “INCLUDING THE TOP 1 PERCENT”Romney: “We’re Going To Cut Taxes On Everyone Across The Country By 20 Percent Including The Top 1 Percent.” Romney: “Number one, I said today that we're going to cut taxes on everyone across the country by 20 percent, including the top 1 percent. So that's number one.”?[CNN/AZ Republican Debate, 2/22/12]Romney Said He Would “To Lower Taxes For Everybody And That Includes People From The Very Highest To The Very Lowest.”?Romney: “We're going to point out that we're going to lower taxes for everybody and that includes people from the very highest to the very lowest.” [Fox & Friends, Fox News, 2/15/12]ROMNEY SAID HIS 20 PERCENT TAX CUT WOULD BENEFIT “ALL TAXPAYERS” BY “ALLOWING AMERICANS TO KEEP MORE OF WHAT THEY EARN”Romney: My 20% Reduction In Marginal Individual Income Tax Rates “Reduces The Tax On The Next Dollar Of Income Earned By All Taxpayers.” Romney: “First, I will make an across-the-board, 20% reduction in marginal individual income tax rates. This bold stroke reduces the tax on the next dollar of income earned by all taxpayers. It also reduces tax rates for the many businesses that pay at individual rates and employ the majority of private-sector American workers, thus driving significant increases in hiring and wages.” [Romney op-ed, Wall Street Journal, 2/23/12]Romney: “By Reducing The Tax On The Next Dollar Of Income Earned By All Taxpayers, We Will Encourage Hard Work, Risk-Taking, And Productivity By Allowing Americans To Keep More Of What They Earn.” [Romney Prepared Remarks At Ford Field, 2/24/12]TRADEPRO-POTUSPresident Obama Has Stood Up To Unfair Chinese Trade Practices And Expanded Trade TiesTHE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION HAS NOW FILED NINE TRADE COMPLAINTS AGAINST CHINA TO THE WTO, BRINGING MORE CASES AGAINST CHINA IN A SINGLE TERM THAN HIS PREDECESSOR DID DURING TWO TERMSPresident Obama “Has Muscled China On Trade Matters Starting In 2009.” “Furthermore, the administration has muscled China on trade matters starting in 2009, when it sought import tariffs on 35 percent of imported tires from China. The Wall Street Journal called it ‘a big victory’ when those tariffs were later upheld by the World Trade Organization.” [, 9/25/12]Including The Obama Administration Has Now Filed Nine Trade Complaints Against China To The WTO, Bringing More Cases Against China In A Single Term Than His Predecessor Did During Two Terms. Including today’s action, the Obama Administration, the U.S. has filed 9 complaints against China with the World Trade Organization. Under the eight years of the Bush Administration, the U.S. filed 7 complaints against China with the WTO. [WTO List Of Disputes Cases, Accessed 9/15/12; Cleveland Plain Dealer, 9/16/12]President Obama Is Launching A Trade Case At The World Trade Organization To Challenge Illegal Chinese Subsidies Of Its Autos And Auto Parts Industries. “While President Barack Obama travels to Columbus and Cincinnati Monday for campaign appearances, his administration also will ask the World Trade Organization, or WTO, to step up a review of what the White House says are unfair duties that China levies on American-made cars. The case is technically separate from the auto parts case but the administration says it presents another example of China's trade-policy abuse. Senior administration officials say they began looking at Chinese abuses in auto parts after Obama formed the Interagency Trade Enforcement Center in March to more aggressively review trade violations. Officials who discussed these matters with The Plain Dealer on the condition that they not be named, since new cases had not been officially filed, are not members of Obama’s reelection team.” [Cleveland Plain Dealer, 9/16/12]PRESIDENT OBAMA SIGNED FREE TRADE AGREEMENTS WITH SOUTH KOREA, COLOMBIA AND PANAMA, MARKING THE BIGGEST STEP FORWARD FOR U.S. TRADE IN NEARLY TWO DECADESAssociated Press: Romney Has “Ignored The Most Significant Expansion Of Trade Ties In Nearly Two Decades” In Accusing President Obama Of “Doing Nothing To Open New Markets.” “Mitt Romney ignored the most significant expansion of trade ties in nearly two decades when he accused the Obama administration Monday night of doing nothing to open new markets. Rick Santorum claimed to be taking purely the high road in campaign ads even as a new one from him veered from that path.”[Associated Press, 1/17/2012]President Obama Signed Free Trade Agreements With South Korea, Colombia And Panama In The Largest Trade Deal Since 1994, With The Agreements To Support An Estimated 70,000 Jobs.?“President Barack Obama will sign the South Korea, Colombia and Panama free trade agreements on Oct. 21, the White House announced. The accords were approved by Congress last week. The agreement with South Korea is the largest trade deal since 1994 and will widen U.S. export access for everything from cars to farm goods and support about 70,000 jobs, according to the administration.” [Bloomberg,?10/18/11]THE U.S. IS ON TRACK TO MEET PRESIDENT OBAMA’S AMBITIOUS GOAL OF DOUBLING EXPORTS BY 2015 President Obama Created The National Export Initiative To Create Jobs By Putting America On The Path To Doubling Exports By 2015. “[In] order to enhance and coordinate Federal efforts to facilitate the creation of jobs in the United States through the promotion of exports… The NEI will help meet my Administration's goal of doubling exports over the next 5 years by working to remove trade barriers abroad, by helping firms -- especially small businesses -- overcome the hurdles to entering new export markets, by assisting with financing, and in general by pursuing a Government-wide approach to export advocacy abroad, among other steps.” [Executive Order – National Export Initiative, 3/11/10]Between 2009 And 2011, Exports Grew At An Annual Average Of 15.6%, Above What Is Necessary To Double Exports By 2015. “U.S. businesses’ exports are growing at a rapid rate. Between 2009 and 2011, U.S. companies increased their exports at an annualized rate of 15.6 percent a year, a pace greater than the 14.9 percent annual rate required to double exports by the end of 2014.” [Department Of Commerce Fact Sheet, 5/17/12]Pushback: President Obama Has Failed To Stand Up To ChinaINDEPENDENT FACT CHECKERS SAY THE ROMNEY CAMPAIGN “MANGLES” AND “EXAGGERATES” THE FACTS ON THE PRESIDENT’S RECORD OF CRACKING DOWN ON UNFAIR CHINESE TRADE : The Romney Campaign “Mangles” And “Manipulates” Facts On The President’s Record On Taking On Unfair Chinese Trade Policy, Which “Has Not Cost The U.S. 2 Million Jobs.”? “Manipulating Facts…Separate from the merits of Romney’s proposal, the fact is that Obama’s decision not to identify China as a currency manipulator has not cost the U.S. 2 million jobs. It also has nothing to do with fighter jet technology being stolen, or with China’s failure to protect ‘American ideas’ through enforcement of intellectual property rights..What’s clear to us, though, is that this Romney campaign ad mangles the facts and strains to blame the high U.S. unemployment rate on Obama’s policies toward China.” [, 9/25/12]President Obama “Has Muscled China On Trade Matters Starting In 2009.” “Furthermore, the administration has muscled China on trade matters starting in 2009, when it sought import tariffs on 35 percent of imported tires from China. The Wall Street Journal called it ‘a big victory’ when those tariffs were later upheld by the World Trade Organization.” [, 9/25/12]Washington Post Fact Checker: The Romney Campaign “Vastly Exaggerates” On President Obama’s China Record And “Ignores Seven Complaints Filed By The Current Administration To Protect Various U.S. Industries From Unfair Trade Practices” By China. “But the ad’s inaccurate bar graphs vastly exaggerate the shift that has taken place — they simply don’t represent the true numbers. As for the notion that Obama refused to stop China’s cheating, the ad ignores seven complaints filed by the current administration to protect various U.S. industries from unfair trade practices by the Asian nation.’ [Washington Post Fact Checker, 9/17/12]?The Romney Campaign Uses “Bogus Graphics” And “Statements That Ignore A Significant Part Of Obama’s Trade Policy Toward China.”?“On balance, the GOP presidential nominee earns two Pinocchios for a campaign ad that features bogus graphics and for statements that ignore a significant part of Obama’s trade policy toward China.”?[Washington Post Fact Checker, 9/17/12]PRESIDENT OBAMA IS DEDICATED TO PROTECTING AMERICAN PRODUCTS FROM UNFAIR CHINESE TRADE PRACTICESPresident Obama Has Brought WTO Trade Cases At Twice The Rate Of His Predecessor. The Obama Administration has filed 8 complaints against China with the World Trade Organization. Under the eight years of the Bush Administration, the U.S. filed 7 complaints against China with the WTO. [WTO List Of Disputes Cases, Accessed 9/15/12; Cleveland Plain Dealer, 9/16/12]Of The Eight Cases Brought By The Obama Administration, Four Have Been Decided – All In Favor Of The U.S. Of the eight cases brought by the Obama Administration, four have been decided. In a case on raw materials export restraints, the United States won victory at both the panel and appellate stages. In a case on electronic Payment Systems, the United States won victory at both the panel and appellate stages. In a case on Grain Oriented Flat-rolled Electrical Steel the United States won victory at the WTO panel. In a case on wind power subsidies, China terminated their program before the conclusion of the WTO panel. [List of WTO Cases, Accessed 10/2/12]President Obama Created The Interagency Trade Enforcement Center To Bring Experts Together To Fight Unfair Trade Practices By Nations Including China. “President Barack Obama signed an executive order creating a U.S. panel to investigate unfair trade practices by nations including China. The Interagency Trade Enforcement Center will bring together lawyers, researchers, analysts and government agents to monitor and enforce trade agreements and laws.” [Bloomberg, 2/28/12]PRESIDENT OBAMA HAS USED -- FOR THE FIRST TIME EVER – SAFEGUARD PROVISIONS TO PROTECT AMERICAN JOBS FROM CHINESE COMPETITIONPresident Obama Imposed Stiff Tariffs On Chinese-Made Tires, For The First Time Imposing Safeguard Provisions To Protect A US Industry From Chinese Competition. “The Obama administration will impose stiff tariffs on imports of Chinese-made tires after finding that a surge of imports has disrupted the U.S. domestic market… It is the first time the U.S. government has imposed special ‘safeguard’ provisions to protect a U.S. industry from Chinese competition.” [MarketWatch, 9/11/09]Since Tariffs On Chinese Tires Were Announced, Domestic Tire Manufacturers Have Added Over 1,000 Jobs. Bureau of Labor Statistics data that show the number of tire manufacturing jobs went from 50,800 in September 2009, when tariffs on Chinese tires were announced, to 52,000 in September 2011. Year-over-year changes in jobs are used because Bureau of Labor Statistics data for tire manufacturing jobs is not seasonally adjusted. [Bureau of Labor Statistics Current Employment Statistics Survey, Accessed 7/13/12]Since Tariffs On Chinese Tires Were Announced, Domestic Tire Production Has Increased By Roughly 10%. According to the Rubber Manufacturers Association, domestic tire production stood at 259.7 million units in 2009. In 2011, domestic tire shipments stood at 284 million units – an increase of 9.4%.[Rubber Manufacturers Association Press Release, 3/7/12; Rubber Manufacturers Association Press Release, 3/12/09]PRESIDENT OBAMA IS PURSUING STRONGER TRADE AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ENFORCEMENT AGAINST CHINAAfter Meeting With President Obama In January 2011, President Hu Of China Agreed To Strengthen China’s Efforts To Enforce Intellectual Property Rights. “In January, President Obama met with the President of China, Hu Jintao, and raised intellectual property enforcement. President Obama and President Hu issued a joint statement, agreeing that China will strengthen its efforts to protect intellectual property rights.” [Office Of The United States Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator, January 2011]China Affirmed This Pledge At The May 2011 U.S.-China Strategic And Economic Dialogue. “China pledged to improve its high-level, long-term intellectual property rights (IPR) protection and enforcement mechanism, building on the current Special Campaign Against IPR Infringement and Fake and Shoddy Products.” [The 2011 U.S.-China Strategic and Economic Dialogue U.S. Fact Sheet, 5/10/2011]?President Obama Signed An Executive Order Establishing A Cabinet-Level Intellectual Property Advisory Committee. “On February 8, President Obama signed Executive Order 13565 establishing two intellectual property advisory committees chaired by the IPEC, a Cabinet-level committee comprised of the heads of the departments responsible for intellectual property enforcement and a committee comprised of Senate-confirmed Government officials from those departments.” [U.S. Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator Joint Strategic Plan, June 2011]PRESIDENT OBAMA HAS REPEATEDLY PRESSED CHINA TO ADDRESS THEIR UNDERVALUED CURRENCYFormer Secretary Of State And Romney Advisor James Baker Said That The Policy We Should Be Pursuing Regarding China’s Currency Is “Pretty Much The Policy We Are Pursuing.” “On China, according to a transcript of the event, he said,?’I think the policy that we should be pursuing is pretty much the policy we are pursuing.? I come, of course – I came over here with a Treasury that on.? I’d been Secretary of the Treasury for four years, interrupted by a political campaign...But one of our big gripes today with China is that they manipulate their currency, and they do.? Now, should we call them a manipulator or not?? Or would we be better off trying to get over that hurdle quietly through quiet diplomacy and serious diplomacy and strength – strong diplomacy?? That’s my view of the way we ought to be approaching that.’” [Politico, 6/22/12]New York Times: President Obama “Repeatedly” Made The Point That The United States Would No Longer Tolerate Deliberate Currency Manipulation During Talks With China’s Prime Minister.“Mr.?Obama?has tried to use the rising public anger over?China's?trade advantage to argue to Chinese leaders that the United States would no longer tolerate deliberate?currency?manipulation, a point Mr.?Obama?made repeatedly in a meeting last week with Wen Jiabao,?China's?prime minister. He did so again on Wednesday in Des Moines, where one businessman asked the president about the issue.” [New York Times, 9/29/2010]THE CHINESE YUAN HAS RISEN ABOUT 11 PERCENT AGAINST THE DOLLAR SINCE JUNE 2010Under President Obama, The Chinese Yuan Has Approached Its Fair Market Value. “The value of China’s currency closed Friday near a record high against the dollar, approaching what some analysts consider a fair market price and potentially easing concerns that the country’s currency policy is damaging the U.S. economy.” [Washington Post, 9/28/12]After Adjusting for Inflation, The Chinese Yuan Has Risen About 11 Percent Against The Dollar Since June 2010. “China has allowed the yuan to appreciate and trimmed its current account surpluses, but the United States believes the currency remains undervalued and will press the issue with the Chinese, Treasury Undersecretary Lael Brainard said on Wednesday...A drop of China's current account surplus by more than 6 percentage points of GDP, reflecting an 11 percent appreciation of the yuan against the dollar, represented ‘progress that is worth acknowledging,’ said Brainard.’” [Reuters, 7/18/12]Thomas Donahue, President Of The U.S. Chamber Of Commerce, Said “You Can’t Make That Argument Anymore” That China Is A Currency Manipulator. “Thomas Donohue, president of America's largest business lobby, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, said the yuan's rise in recent years had taken away the case for declaring China a currency manipulator. ‘You can't make that argument anymore,’ he said in April. The yuan has appreciated nearly 30 percent since China broke its peg to the U.S. dollar in 2005. When adjusted for inflation, it is up about 40 percent against the greenback, and China labor and other manufacturing costs have climbed.” [Reuters, 6/13/12]Pushback: President Obama Failed To Label China A Currency ManipulatorINDEPENDENT FACT CHECKERS SAY THE ROMNEY CAMPAIGN “MANGLES” THE FACTS ON THE PRESIDENT’S RECORD OF CRACKING DOWN ON UNFAIR CHINESE TRADE : “Romney Ad On China Mangles Facts.” “Romney Ad on China Mangles Facts…What’s clear to us, though, is that this Romney campaign ad mangles the facts and strains to blame the high U.S. unemployment rate on Obama’s policies toward China.” [, 9/25/12]President Obama “Has Muscled China On Trade Matters Starting In 2009.” “Furthermore, the administration has muscled China on trade matters starting in 2009, when it sought import tariffs on 35 percent of imported tires from China. The Wall Street Journal called it ‘a big victory’ when those tariffs were later upheld by the World Trade Organization.” [, 9/25/12]PRESIDENT OBAMA HAS REPEATEDLY PRESSED CHINA TO ADDRESS THEIR UNDERVALUED CURRENCYFormer Secretary Of State And Romney Advisor James Baker Said That The Policy We Should Be Pursuing Regarding China’s Currency Is “Pretty Much The Policy We Are Pursuing.” “On China, according to a transcript of the event, he said,?’I think the policy that we should be pursuing is pretty much the policy we are pursuing.? I come, of course – I came over here with a Treasury that on.? I’d been Secretary of the Treasury for four years, interrupted by a political campaign...But one of our big gripes today with China is that they manipulate their currency, and they do.? Now, should we call them a manipulator or not?? Or would we be better off trying to get over that hurdle quietly through quiet diplomacy and serious diplomacy and strength – strong diplomacy?? That’s my view of the way we ought to be approaching that.’” [Politico, 6/22/12]New York Times: President Obama “Repeatedly” Made The Point That The United States Would No Longer Tolerate Deliberate Currency Manipulation During Talks With China’s Prime Minister.“Mr.?Obama?has tried to use the rising public anger over?China's?trade advantage to argue to Chinese leaders that the United States would no longer tolerate deliberate?currency?manipulation, a point Mr.?Obama?made repeatedly in a meeting last week with Wen Jiabao,?China's?prime minister. He did so again on Wednesday in Des Moines, where one businessman asked the president about the issue.” [New York Times, 9/29/2010]THE CHINESE YUAN HAS RISEN ABOUT 11 PERCENT AGAINST THE DOLLAR SINCE JUNE 2010After Adjusting for Inflation, The Chinese Yuan Has Risen About 11 Percent Against The Dollar Since June 2010. “China has allowed the yuan to appreciate and trimmed its current account surpluses, but the United States believes the currency remains undervalued and will press the issue with the Chinese, Treasury Undersecretary Lael Brainard said on Wednesday...A drop of China's current account surplus by more than 6 percentage points of GDP, reflecting an 11 percent appreciation of the yuan against the dollar, represented ‘progress that is worth acknowledging,’ said Brainard.’” [Reuters, 7/18/12]Critics Of China’s Currency Policy Now Say That The Yuan Is Now Only “Very Modestly” Undervalued. “’The U.S. should be praising China for reducing its external surplus so rapidly since 2007,’ said Nicholas Lardy, a China expert at the Peterson Institute for International Economics. The head of the institute, C. Fred Bergsten, has been a leading critic of China's currency, saying the yuan was 40 percent undervalued. But Lardy says the gap is now ‘very modest, not more than 10 percent.’” [Reuters, 4/13/12]Pushback: Under President Obama, China Surpassed The U.S. In ManufacturingFACT CHECKERS HAVE CALLED THE ROMNEY CAMPAIGN’S CLAIMS ABOUT CHINESE AND AMERICAN MANUFACTURING “TOTALLY OUT OF PROPORTION,” “FAR FROM ACCURATE,” AND A “GROSS MISREPRESENTATION” OF THE FACTSWashington Post Fact Checker: The Romney Campaign Ads That Suggest A “Giant Shift In Output” Between Chinese And U.S. Manufacturing Are “Totally Out Of Proportion. “The Romney campaign ad features a pair of bar graphs supposedly representing U.S. vs. Chinese shares of world manufacturing during Obama’s tenure in the White House. The illustrations suggest a giant shift in output between the two nations since the president took office in 2009. To prove its claims about manufacturing output, the Romney campaign pointed us to a set of U.N. numbers on global manufacturing compiled by the British Parliament. Sure enough, China increased its share of the world total by 25 percent. (It claimed the top spot in 2011, bumping the U.S. from a perch it had held for 110 years). Still, the Romney campaign’s illustrations are totally out of proportion. The U.N. numbers show that U.S. manufacturing represented 18.5 percent of world output in 2008, compared to 15.1 percent for China. That’s not what the graphs indicate.” [Washington Post Fact Checker, 9/17/12]The Ads Have “Far From Accurate” Depictions Of U.S. And Chinese Manufacturing Levels And Depict A “Gross Misrepresentation” Of Output Shifts. “We translated the U.N. numbers into brick layers, since that’s the metric the Romney campaign used. Based on the true figures, we should see 14 layers of brick for the U.S. and 11 for China. But the ad shows 14 for the U.S. and eight for China — far from accurate. If the illustrations were properly scaled, they would show Chinese manufacturing at 82 percent of U.S. output in 2008. Instead, they put Chinese manufacturing at just over half of U.S. output that year, overstating the U.S. advantage at the time Obama took office. The bar graphs eventually change, showing U.S. output shrinking to half of China’s by 2010 — it uses eight brick layers to 16 for the two countries, respectively. This is a gross misrepresentation of the real shift. The U.S. share of global output in 2010 was actually 96 percent of Chinese manufacturing. An accurate graphic would have shown about 15 layers of brick for the U.S. next to 16 layers for China.” [Washington Post Fact Checker, 9/17/12]Pushback: President Obama’s Action On Tire Tariffs Hurt The U.S. EconomyPRESIDENT OBAMA HAS BEEN TOUGH ON UNFAIR CHINESE TRADE POLICIES, INCLUDING IMPOSING STIFF TARIFFS ON CHINESE TIRES TO SAVE OVER A THOUSAND AMERICAN JOBS President Obama Imposed Stiff Tariffs On Chinese-Made Tires, For The First Time Imposing Safeguard Provisions To Protect A US Industry From Chinese Competition.?? “The Obama administration will impose stiff tariffs on imports of Chinese-made tires after finding that a surge of imports has disrupted the U.S. domestic market… It is the first time the U.S. government has imposed special ‘safeguard’ provisions to protect a U.S. industry from Chinese competition.”? [MarketWatch, 9/11/09]Since Tariffs On Chinese Tires Were Announced, Domestic Tire Manufacturers Have Added Over 1,000 Jobs. Bureau of Labor Statistics data that show the number of tire manufacturing jobs went from 50,800 in September 2009, when tariffs on Chinese tires were announced, to 52,000 in September 2011. Year-over-year changes in jobs are used because Bureau of Labor Statistics data for tire manufacturing jobs is not seasonally adjusted. [Bureau of Labor Statistics Current Employment Statistics Survey, Accessed 7/13/12]Since Tariffs On Chinese Tires Were Announced, Domestic Tire Production Has Increased By Roughly 10%. According to the Rubber Manufacturers Association, domestic tire production stood at 259.7 million units in 2009. In 2011, domestic tire shipments stood at 284 million units – an increase of 9.4%.[Rubber Manufacturers Association Press Release, 3/7/12; Rubber Manufacturers Association Press Release, 3/12/09]TARIFFS ON CHINESE TIRES WERE DESIGNED AS A TEMPORARY MEASURE TO GIVE TIREMAKERS BREATHING ROOM AND TO PREVENT OTHER COUNTRIES FROM FLOODING THE MARKET WITH IMPORTS, AND THE TARIFFS HAVE ACHIEVED THEIR GOAL OF IMPROVING INDUSTRY EMPLOYMENT, PROFITABILITY, AND BUSINESS STRATEGIESThe Tariffs On Chinese Tires Was Designed To “Give The Domestic Industry And Its Workers Breathing Space In Which To Adjust To Import Competition.” “We have recommended that the increased duties be phased down in annual 10 percentage-point increments over the three-year remedy period. This recommendation recognizes that the remedy is only temporary in nature and is designed to give the domestic industry and its workers breathing space in which to adjust to import competition, which will be encouraged by the phasing down of the duties… We recommend that the remedy remain in place for a three-year period because we believe that a remedy of such duration is needed to give firms and workers in the industry the time to identify and implement needed adjustments to import competition.” [International Trade Commission Report, “Certain Passenger Vehicle and Light Truck Tires from China,” July 2009]The Gradual Reduction In Tariffs Was Designed To “Limit The Extent To Which Non-Subject Suppliers May Increase Their Exports To The United States In Response To The Relief On Imports From China.” “In addition, reducing the size of the duty each year is likely to limit the extent to which non-subject suppliers may increase their exports to the United States in response to the relief on imports from China.” [International Trade Commission Report, “Certain Passenger Vehicle and Light Truck Tires from China,” July 2009]Northcoast Research Report: Cooper Tire And Goodyear Tire Are “Gaining Traction From Their Business Strategies” And Have “Reduced Their Prices.” “According to Northcoast Research Holdings LLC, Cooper Tire & Rubber Co. and Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. are gaining traction from their business strategies. The investment and research firm has given their respective stocks ‘Buy’ ratings. He also says tire manufacturers reduced their prices in the third quarter, and may continue to do so (see below).” [Modern Tire Dealer, 9/24/12]Modern Tire Dealer July 2012 Monthly Survey: “Tire Prices Continue To Trend Downward… Pricing Gets Aggressive On Passenger Tire Side.” “Tire prices continue to trend downward In comparing July 2012 with June 2012, the average cost for a size 215/60R16 major brand tire was flat while the average price was down 1%. The average cost and price for a 215/60R16 private brand tire were down 1%. Pricing gets aggressive on passenger tire side In July 2012, 75% of passenger tire dealers saw pricing as aggressive while the remaining 13% saw it as normal. Twelve percent of the passenger tire dealers saw it as firm.” [Modern Tire Dealer, 9/14/12]Pushback: President Obama Has Signed No Free Trade AgreementsPRESIDENT OBAMA SIGNED FREE TRADE AGREEMENTS WITH SOUTH KOREA, COLOMBIA AND PANAMA, MARKING THE BIGGEST STEP FORWARD FOR U.S. TRADE IN NEARLY TWO DECADESAssociated Press: Romney Has “Ignored The Most Significant Expansion Of Trade Ties In Nearly Two Decades” In Accusing President Obama Of “Doing Nothing To Open New Markets.” “Mitt Romney ignored the most significant expansion of trade ties in nearly two decades when he accused the Obama administration Monday night of doing nothing to open new markets. Rick Santorum claimed to be taking purely the high road in campaign ads even as a new one from him veered from that path.”[Associated Press, 1/17/2012]President Obama Signed Free Trade Agreements With South Korea, Colombia And Panama In The Largest Trade Deal Since 1994, With The Agreements To Support An Estimated 70,000 Jobs.?“President Barack Obama will sign the South Korea, Colombia and Panama free trade agreements on Oct. 21, the White House announced. The accords were approved by Congress last week. The agreement with South Korea is the largest trade deal since 1994 and will widen U.S. export access for everything from cars to farm goods and support about 70,000 jobs, according to the administration.” [Bloomberg,?10/18/11]The Obama Administration Is Working Towards The Trans-Pacific Partnership, A Trade Agreement That Seeks To Boost U.S. Economic Growth And Job Creation While Expanding Our Nation’s Market Access In A Region That Represents More Than 40 Percent Of Global Trade. “President Obama announced in November 2009 the United States’ intention to participate in the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) negotiations to conclude an ambitious, next-generation, Asia-Pacific trade agreement that reflects U.S. priorities and values. Through this agreement, we are seeking to boost U.S. economic growth and support the creation and retention of high-quality jobs at home by increasing American exports to a region that includes some of the world’s most robust economies and that represents more than 40 percent of global trade. The Obama Administration has been working in partnership with Congress and consulting closely with stakeholders around the country to ensure TPP addresses the issues that American businesses and workers are facing today, and may confront in the future. The United States, along with Australia, Brunei Darussalam, Chile, Malaysia, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, and Vietnam are working to craft a high-standard agreement that addresses new and emerging trade issues and 21st-century challenges.” [Office Of The United States Trade Representative Fact Sheet On The Trans Pacific Partnership, 11/12/11]The American Enterprise Institute Called The TPP “The Single Most Important US Trade Initiative Over The Next Several Years.” “Given the bleak outlook for the World Trade Organization Doha Round, the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPP)--a free trade agreement (FTA) being negotiated by the United States and eight other Pacific countries--will become the single most important US trade initiative over the next several years.” [American Enterprise Institute, 6/1/11]President Obama Has Taken Major Steps To Boost Latin American TradeSINCE PRESIDENT OBAMA TOOK OFFICE, U.S. EXPORTS TO LATIN AMERICA HAVE GROWN BY NEARLY 60 PERCENT, AND THE PRESIDENT HAS TAKEN MAJOR STEPS TO BOOST LATIN AMERICAN TRADE, INCLUDING SIGNING TWO TRADE AGREEMENTS SINCE PRESIDENT OBAMA TOOK OFFICE, U.S. EXPORTS TO LATIN AMERICA HAVE GROWN BY NEARLY 60 PERCENTPresident Obama: “I Believe That Latin America Is More Important To The Prosperity And Security Of The United States Than Ever Before.” “So this is the Latin America that I see today -- a region on the move, proud of its progress, and ready to assume a greater role in world affairs.? And for all these reasons, I believe that Latin America is more important to the prosperity and security of the United States than ever before.? With no other region does the United States have so many connections.? And nowhere do we see that more than in the tens of millions of Hispanic Americans across the United States, who enrich our society, grow our economy and strengthen our nation every single day. And I believe Latin America is only going to become more important to the United States, especially to our economy.” [Remarks by President Obama on Latin America in Santiago, Chile, 3/21/11]Since President Obama Took Office In 2009, Exports Of Goods And Services To Latin America Have Increased By Nearly 60%. According to U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis International Trade data, exports of goods and services to South and Central America have increased from $284,493 million in all four quarters of 2009 to $448,606 million in the last four quarters – an increase of 57.6%. [U.S. Bureau Of Economic Analysis International Transactions Data, Release Date 9/18/12]THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION IMPROVED AND SIGNED FREE TRADE AGREEMENTS WITH COLOMBIA AND PANAMA THAT WILL BOOST TRADE WITH LATIN AMERICA AND IS PURSUING A NEW REGIONAL TRADE AGREEMENT THAT INCLUDES LATIN AMERICAN COUNTRIESPresident Obama Signed A Trade Agreement With Colombia, Which Will Increase Exports By Approximately $1.1 Billion And Support Thousands Of American Jobs. “The U.S. International Trade Commission estimates that the elimination of tariffs and related barriers in Colombia will increase U.S. Gross Domestic Product by nearly $2.5 billion and U.S. merchandise exports by $1.1 billion. The agreement will support thousands of American jobs.” [, 10/14/11]President Obama Signed A Trade Agreement With Panama, Increasing US Businesses’ Access To One Of The Fastest Growing Economies In Latin America. “The United States and Panama signed a trade promotion agreement, sometimes called a Free Trade Agreement (FTA), on June 28, 2007. Panama approved the TPA on July 11, 2007. The TPA was signed into law in the United States on October 21, 2011… Panama is one of the fastest growing economies in Latin America, expanding 6.2 percent in 2010, with similar annual growth forecast through 2015.” [Office of the US Trade Representative, Accessed 11/9/11]The Obama Administration Is Working Towards Completing The Trans-Pacific Partnership, A Trade Agreement That? Expanding Our Nation’s Market Access In A Region That Includes South American Countries Like Mexico, Chile And Peru. “Over the 10-day negotiating round, negotiators from the United States and the other eight TPP countries – Australia, Brunei Darussalam, Chile, Malaysia, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore and Vietnam – advanced their efforts to reach agreement on the texts of the 29 chapters of the agreement…Through the TPP, the Obama Administration is seeking to conclude a state-of-the-art trade and investment agreement with some of the most dynamic economies in the Asia Pacific, boosting U.S. exports and supporting the creation and retention of U.S. jobs, while advancing core U.S. values such as labor rights and environmental protection…Mexico and Canada will join the TPP negotiations once current TPP members successfully conclude their domestic procedures, which is expected to occur in early October.” [Office Of The United States Trade Representative Press Release, 9/15/12]The U.S. Is On Track To Double Exports By 2015THE U.S. IS ON TRACK TO MEET PRESIDENT OBAMA’S AMBITIOUS GOAL OF DOUBLING EXPORTS BY 2015 President Obama Created The National Export Initiative To Create Jobs By Putting America On The Path To Doubling Exports By 2015. “[In] order to enhance and coordinate Federal efforts to facilitate the creation of jobs in the United States through the promotion of exports… The NEI will help meet my Administration's goal of doubling exports over the next 5 years by working to remove trade barriers abroad, by helping firms -- especially small businesses -- overcome the hurdles to entering new export markets, by assisting with financing, and in general by pursuing a Government-wide approach to export advocacy abroad, among other steps.” [Executive Order – National Export Initiative, 3/11/10]Between 2009 And 2011, Exports Grew At An Annual Average Of 15.6%, Above What Is Necessary To Double Exports By 2015. “U.S. businesses’ exports are growing at a rapid rate. Between 2009 and 2011, U.S. companies increased their exports at an annualized rate of 15.6 percent a year, a pace greater than the 14.9 percent annual rate required to double exports by the end of 2014.” [Department Of Commerce Fact Sheet, 5/17/12]Since President Obama Took Office, Monthly Exports Have Increased By Over 46%. According to Commerce Department data, U.S. International Trade in Goods and Services stood at $125,272,000,000 in January 2009, and increased by over 44% by July 2012 to $183,269,000,000. [U.S. Census Bureau U.S. International Trade in Goods and Services, 6/6/12]In 2011, Every Billion Dollars Of U.S. Exports Supported Over 5,000 Jobs. According to International Trade Administration data, in 2011, every billion dollars of U.S. exports supported 5,080 jobs. [International Trade Administration Press Release, 3/12/12]Since President Obama Launched The National Export Initiative, The US Has Added 1.2 Million Jobs Supported By Exports. According to an International Trade Administration analysis of Bureau of Labor Statistics data, 9.7 million jobs were supported by exports in 2011. In 2009, 8.5 million jobs were supported by exports. [International Trade Administration Press Release, 3/12/12]Since President Obama Took Office In 2009, Exports Of Goods And Services To Latin America Have Increased By 50%. According to U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis International Trade data, exports of goods and services to South and Central America have increased from $284,493 billion in 2009 to $426,245billion in 2011 – an increase of 49.8%. [U.S. Bureau Of Economic Analysis International Transactions Data, Accessed 9/30/12]U.S. Monthly Exports Of Goods To China Have More Than Doubled Since January 2009. In January 2009, the US exported $4,159,600,000 in goods to China. In July 2012, the US exported $8,554,100,000 in goods to China, representing an increase of 105%. [Census Bureau Data: US Trade In Goods With China, Accessed 9/21/12]Pushback: President Obama Stalled Trade DealsPRESIDENT OBAMA MADE CHANGES TO THE TRADE DEALS TO MAKE SURE WE WERE GETTING THE BEST DEAL FOR OUR WORKERS AND BUSINESSESPRESIDENT OBAMA STOOD UP TO MEMBERS OF HIS OWN PARTY TO GET THE AGREEMENTS FINALIZEDTampa Bay Times PolitiFact: President Obama Took On Political Risk To Secure The Passage Of Free Trade Agreements. “All three [trade] deals were initially forged under President George W. Bush, but Bush was unable to get the deals past a Democratic-controlled Congress…Even though negotiations with lawmakers dragged on, the administration was ultimately able to secure a legislative formulation that could garner enough votes to pass. Doing so required some political risk for the president with his own base, since a sizable faction within his own party is skeptical of expanding free trade agreements.” [Tampa Bay Times, PolitiFact, 1/8/12]Tampa Bay Times PolitiFact Rated The Claim That President Obama Had Opened No New Trade Deals “False.” [PolitiFact, 1/28/2012] PRESIDENT OBAMA INSISTED THAT CONGRESS INSERT PROVISIONS FOR WORKERS HURT BY TRADEThe Passage Of Free Trade Deals Was Stalled Because Of Republican Opposition To Renewal Of Assistance For Workers Adversely Affected By Trade. “For weeks, President Obama has derided Congress for failing to pass the agreements, as well as a measure that would provide money to assist workers displaced by foreign competition. ‘The only thing preventing us from passing these bills is the refusal by some in Congress to put country ahead of party,’ he said at a recent news conference…When the Democrats controlled Congress, they resisted the trade agreements because they feared they would harm American workers. Then came the Obama administration, which insisted, as part of any trade deal, on renewing a program to assist people adversely affected and adding $964 million to the effort. That linkage has met resistance from Republicans. In July, Senator Orrin Hatch, the ranking Republican on the Finance Committee, said that program was a deal breaker for his party.” [New York Times, 8/26/11]Washington Post: “Controversy Over The U.S. Deficit Has Stalled The Deals, With Republicans Opposing Renewal Of The Billion-Dollar-A-Year Trade Adjustment Assistance Program.”? “Free trade agreements with South Korea, Colombia and Panama have become a centerpiece of the Obama administration’s efforts to boost U.S. sales overseas, a foray into trade politics by a president who, as a candidate, expressed skepticism about the benefits of prior free trade pacts. The Korea deal is expected to generate more than $10 billion in additional annual sales for U.S. companies. But the controversy over the U.S. deficit has stalled the deals, with Republicans opposing renewal of the billion-dollar-a-year Trade Adjustment Assistance program.” [Washington Post, 6/15/11]US Chamber Of Commerce President Thomas Donohue: The Trade Agreements Are A “Victory For American Workers, American Competitiveness, And American Leadership.” “The U.S. Chamber of Commerce hailed the bipartisan Congressional approval of the trade agreements with South Korea, Colombia, and Panama and urged the president and lawmakers to build on it with an aggressive new trade agenda. ‘Passing these trade agreements represents a victory for American workers, American competitiveness, and American leadership,’ said Thomas J. Donohue, president and CEO of the U.S. Chamber.” [US Chamber Of Commerce Press Release, 10/12/11]The Obama Administration Is Bringing And Winning Trade Enforcement CasesTHE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION IS BRINGING AND WINNING TRADE ENFORCEMENT CASES AGAINST COUNTRIES ACROSS THE GLOBE TO PROTECT THE RIGHTS AND LIVELIHOODS OF AMERICAN : “Actually, Intellectual Property Rights Are A High Priority Of The Obama Administration.” “Actually, intellectual property rights are a high priority of the Obama administration, and in 2010 it won what it called “significant intellectual property rights enforcement initiatives” from the Chinese.” [, 9/25/12]The Obama Administration Won The Largest Enforcement Case Ever Heard By A World Trade Organization Panel, Working To End More Than $18 Billion In European Subsidies Hurting US Competitiveness. “U.S. enforcement successes in 2011 include Appellate Body rulings against more than $18 billion in subsidies conferred on Airbus by the EU, France, Germany, Spain, and the UK—the largest case heard by the WTO to date—as well as against the Philippines’ discriminatory tax regime for distilled spirits. In addition, the United States obtained from the Appellate Body an important victory in a dispute brought by China against additional duties imposed by the United States on imports of Chinese tires under the transitional safeguard mechanism included in China’s Protocol of Accession to the WTO.” [US Trade Representative Office 2012 Trade Policy Agenda And 2011 Annual Report, 2/27/12]The Obama Administration Initiated The First Labor Case That The United States Has Ever Brought Under A Trade Agreement. “Under the Dominican Republic-Central America-United States Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA-DR), the Administration filed the first labor case the United States has ever brought under a trade agreement. Following the Administration’s 2009 promise to more vigorously scrutinize foreign labor practices, the case alleges that Guatemala failed to perform labor rights inspections, to take action to address labor law violations and to enforce orders involving labor rights. The Administration will continue to seek specific and effective action from Guatemala to address systemic failures in enforcing its labor laws.”[US Trade Representative 2010 Annual Report, March 2011] CONTRASTRomney Criticized President Obama’s Efforts To Protect The Tire IndustryPRESIDENT OBAMA HAS BEEN TOUGH ON UNFAIR CHINESE TRADE POLICIES, INCLUDING IMPOSING STIFF TARIFFS ON CHINESE TIRES TO SAVE OVER A THOUSAND AMERICAN JOBS President Obama Imposed Stiff Tariffs On Chinese-Made Tires, For The First Time Imposing Safeguard Provisions To Protect A US Industry From Chinese Competition.?? “The Obama administration will impose stiff tariffs on imports of Chinese-made tires after finding that a surge of imports has disrupted the U.S. domestic market… It is the first time the U.S. government has imposed special ‘safeguard’ provisions to protect a U.S. industry from Chinese competition.”? [MarketWatch, 9/11/09]Since Tariffs On Chinese Tires Were Announced, Domestic Tire Manufacturers Have Added Over 1,000 Jobs. Bureau of Labor Statistics data that show the number of tire manufacturing jobs went from 50,800 in September 2009, when tariffs on Chinese tires were announced, to 52,000 in September 2011. Year-over-year changes in jobs are used because Bureau of Labor Statistics data for tire manufacturing jobs is not seasonally adjusted. [Bureau of Labor Statistics Current Employment Statistics Survey, Accessed 7/13/12]Since Tariffs On Chinese Tires Were Announced, Domestic Tire Production Has Increased By Roughly 10%. According to the Rubber Manufacturers Association, domestic tire production stood at 259.7 million units in 2009. In 2011, domestic tire shipments stood at 284 million units – an increase of 9.4%.[Rubber Manufacturers Association Press Release, 3/7/12; Rubber Manufacturers Association Press Release, 3/12/09]ROMNEY REPEATEDLY CRITICIZED PRESIDENT OBAMA FOR IMPOSING TARIFFS ON CHINESE TIRES CALLING IT “PROTECTIONISM” AND “BAD FOR THE NATION AND OUR WORKERS”Romney Attacked Obama’s Chinese Tire Tariffs As “Bad For The Nation And Our Workers” And Called It “Protectionism.”?“President Obama’s action to defend American tire companies from foreign competition may make good politics by repaying unions for their support of his campaign, but it is decidedly bad for the nation and our workers. Protectionism stifles productivity.” [Romney, No Apology: Case for American Greatness, Page 119 (audio available), released 3/2/10]Romney’s Campaign Attacked President Obama For Taking “Protectionist Action Against China” Through Chinese Tire Tariffs. Romney For President memo by policy director Lanhee Chen: “What message does it send the Chinese when President Obama takes protectionist action against China on behalf of Big Labor, undermining free trade principles for political gain? The Obama campaign has repeatedly held out its Section 421 action against Chinese tires as an example of President Obama’s supposedly tough China policy.” [Lanhee Chen Memo On China & Trade, Romney For President, 7/10/12]Romney’s Campaign Released A Statement Calling The President’s Tire Tariff “Misguided.”? [Romney For President, Press Release, 9/26/12]ATTACKChina: Romney Criticized Chinese Tire TariffsROMNEY REPEATEDLY CRITICIZED PRESIDENT OBAMA FOR IMPOSING TARIFFS ON CHINESE TIRES CALLING IT “PROTECTIONISM” AND “BAD FOR THE NATION AND OUR WORKERS”Romney Attacked Obama’s Chinese Tire Tariffs As “Bad For The Nation And Our Workers” And Called It “Protectionism.”?“President Obama’s action to defend American tire companies from foreign competition may make good politics by repaying unions for their support of his campaign, but it is decidedly bad for the nation and our workers. Protectionism stifles productivity.” [Romney, No Apology: Case for American Greatness, Page 119 (audio available), released 3/2/10]Romney’s Campaign Attacked President Obama For Taking “Protectionist Action Against China” Through Chinese Tire Tariffs. Romney For President memo by policy director Lanhee Chen: “What message does it send the Chinese when President Obama takes protectionist action against China on behalf of Big Labor, undermining free trade principles for political gain? The Obama campaign has repeatedly held out its Section 421 action against Chinese tires as an example of President Obama’s supposedly tough China policy.” [Lanhee Chen Memo On China & Trade, Romney For President, 7/10/12]Romney’s Campaign Released A Statement Calling The President’s Tire Tariff “Misguided.”? [Romney For President, Press Release, 9/26/12]China: Romney Would Start A Trade War With ChinaROMNEY WOULD START A TRADE WAR WITH CHINAWall Street Journal Editorial: Romney Claims A Trade War Is A Way To Faster Growth. The Wall Street Journal wrote of Romney’s Jobs Plan: “Starting a trade war is a rare policy mistake that Mr. Obama hasn't made, but Mr. Romney claims it is a way to faster growth.” [Editorial Wall Street Journal, 9/7/11]Club For Growth: “A President Romney Would Be Wise To Avoid Starting A Trade War With China And Punitive Duties Like The Ones Proposed By Romney Are The First Step In That Direction.” [Hill, 9/6/11]National Review Editorial: Romney’s Jobs Plan “Is Mostly Unremarkable – Except For His Promise To Risk A Trade War With China, A Remarkably Bad Idea” And “Wrongheaded.” “Mitt Romney released a jobs plan, which put him a step ahead of the current president, and it is mostly unremarkable — except for his promise to risk a trade war with China, a remarkably bad idea. In truth, it is an idea sufficient wrongheaded that it has been endorsed both by Donald Trump and by Paul Krugman, whose policy prescriptions on China Mr. Romney seems to have adopted tooth to tail.” [Editorial, National Review, 9/7/11]ROMNEY’S ATTACKS AGAINST CHINA SHOW A LACK OF REAL POLICY AND CONCERN THE BUSINESS COMMUNITYCNN Headline: “Romney’s China Attacks Worry Business” [CNN, 9/17/12]CNN: “U.S. Business Executives Are Growing Increasingly Worried By Mitt Romney's Vows That He'll Crack Down On China's Trade Policy If Elected.” [CNN, 9/17/12]Reuters: Some In The Business Community Are Worried That Romney “Is Wasting Political Capital On The Currency Question When There Are Bigger Problems To Resolve With China.” “The saber-rattling from Romney has worried business executives. Behind closed doors, some grumble that he is wasting political capital on the currency question when there are bigger problems to resolve with China, such as access to its financial markets and protecting U.S. companies' intellectual property.” [Reuters, 6/13/12] The Chamber Of Commerce Announced Its Opposition To Mitt Romney’s Pledge To Designate China As A Currency Manipulator. “The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the largest business lobbying organization, opposes Mitt Romney’s pledge to designate China as a currency manipulator if he is elected president, the group’s chief operating officer said.” [Bloomberg, 9/27/12]Chamber Of Commerce Vice President David Chavern On Romney’s Position On Chinese Currency: “Picking Fights With Trading Partners Probably Isn’t The Best Way To Have Expansion Of The Global Trading System.” [Bloomberg, 9/27/12]FORMER AMBASSADOR TO CHINA AND ROMNEY ENDORSER JON HUNTSMAN HAS REPEATEDLY ATTACKED ROMNEY’S COMPETENCY LEVEL TO DEAL WITH CHINA Huntsman: Romney Doesn’t Understand The Situation With China And Romney’s Stated China Policies “Would Lead To A Trade War.”?Huntsman: “I think it's important to note, as they would say in China, that – [speaking Mandarin] he doesn't quite understand this situation. What he is calling for would lead to a trade war. It makes for easy talk and a nice applause line but it's far different from the reality in the U.S.-China relationship.”? [Huntsman, ABC News/WMUR Debate, 1/7/12]Huntsman Video: By Labeling China A Currency Manipulator, Romney Would Start A Trade War And Hurt Small Businesses. “The web video targets Romney, the former Massachusetts governor, for saying he would label China a currency manipulator. Huntsman has said that move would start a trade war and hurt small businesses in America.” [CNN, 11/14/11]Huntsman Attacking Romney For “Pandering” To “Get Applause” By Saying He Would Slap A Tariffs On China. Huntsman at the Brookings Institution: “Well, first of all, let’s call it what it is, it’s pandering.? It sounds good and you can get an applause out of the group when you say we’re going to slap a tariff on China, we’re going to go to war with China.” [Brookings Institution, 11/14/11]WALL STREET REFORMPRO-POTUSPresident Obama Passed The Most Sweeping Set Of Wall Street Reforms Since The 1930sPRESIDENT OBAMA PASSED THE MOST SWEEPING SET OF WALL STREET REFORMS SINCE THE 1930sNew York Times: “President Obama Signed A Sweeping Expansion Of Federal Financial Regulation” That “Subjects More Financial Companies To Federal Oversight And Regulates Many Derivatives Contracts While Creating A Consumer Protection Regulator And A Panel To Detect Risks To The Financial System.” “President Obama signed a sweeping expansion of federal financial regulation on Wednesday, signaling perhaps the Democrats’ last major legislative victory before the midterm elections in November, which could recast the Congressional landscape…Still, Democrats and White House officials were euphoric about passage of the legislation, a response to the 2008 financial crisis that tipped the nation into the worst recession since the Great Depression. The law subjects more financial companies to federal oversight and regulates many derivatives contracts while creating a consumer protection regulator and a panel to detect risks to the financial system.” [New York Times, 7/21/10]Wall Street Reform Expressly Prohibits Taxpayer Bailouts For Financial Institutions And Provides For The Orderly Liquidation Of Failing Financial Firms Funded By Bank Assets And Assessments. “The Act provides for the orderly liquidation of systemically important, failing financial companies and: Generally subjects these failing systemic financial companies (i.e., covered financial companies), including brokers and/or dealers and insurance companies, to orderly liquidation, subject to a systemic risk determination involving the FDIC, FRB, and Treasury (in consultation with the President)…The Act expressly prohibits taxpayer bailouts by: Providing that shareholders receive no payments until all other claims are paid (including claims of the FDIC and other governmental entities). Requiring unsecured creditors to bear losses in accordance with priority of claims provisions. Requiring the FDIC to ensure that management and board members responsible for failure are removed. If receivership assets are insufficient to cover the costs of orderly liquidation, requiring any funds expended in the liquidation of any financial company to be recovered through assessments as described in the Act.” [Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Staff Summary Of Wall Street Reform, 9/10/10]Wall Street Reform Will “Shine A Light Into Shadowy Financial Markets That Had Escaped The Oversight Of Regulators.” “The law will give the government new powers to break up companies that threaten the economy, create a new agency to protect consumers in their financial transactions and shine a light into shadowy financial markets that had escaped the oversight of regulators. From storefront payday lenders to the biggest banking and investment houses on Wall Street, few players in the financial world are immune to the bill's reach. Consumer and investor transactions, whether simple debit card swipes or the most complex securities trades, face new safeguards or restrictions.” [Associated Press, 7/16/10]Wall Street Reform Created The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, The Nation’s First Federal Agency Focused Solely On Consumer Financial Protection – Shielding Consumers From Unfair, Deceptive, Or Abusive Acts Or Practices. “The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (‘CFPB’ or ‘Bureau’) is the nation’s first federal agency focused solely on consumer financial protection. The Dodd-Frank Act defines five objectives for the CFPB: to ensure that consumers have timely and understandable information to make responsible decisions about financial transactions; to protect consumers from unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts or practices, and from discrimination; to reduce outdated, unnecessary, or unduly burdensome regulations; to promote fair competition by consistent enforcement of the consumer protection laws in the Bureau’s jurisdiction; and to encourage markets for consumer financial products and services that operate transparently and efficiently and to facilitate access and innovation.” [Semi-Annual Report of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, 1/30/12]Independent Community Bankers Of America: Wall Street Reform Helped To “Level The Regulatory And Competitive Playing Field For Community Banks” And “Reduce Unfair Competitive Advantage” From Non-Bank Competitors. “Shortly after Dodd-Frank passed Congress last year, the Independent Community Bankers of America applauded the law for helping to ‘level the regulatory and competitive playing field for community banks.’ Specifically, the group praises new rules that force bigger banks to pay more in deposit insurance, which the ICBA estimates will ‘save community banks $4.5 billion over the next three years. The group also praises higher capital and liquidity requirements for the biggest banks, the Volcker rule, and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which the group says ‘will reduce the unfair competitive advantage’ from non-bank competitors.” [Washington Post, WonkBlog, 11/10/11]President Obama Made Sure Banks Paid Back Every Dollar They Owed And Instituted Requirements To Strengthen BanksPRESIDENT OBAMA MADE SURE BANKS PAID BACK EVERY DOLLAR THEY OWEDNon-AIG Bank Bailouts – Called “Bank Programs” By Treasury – Have Made A $21 Billion Profit For Taxpayers. [Treasury TARP Tracker, Accessed 9/8/12]September 2012: Treasury And The Federal Reserve’s Combined $182 Billion Commitment Made To Stabilize AIG During The Financial Crisis Was Fully Recovered. “Today, the U.S. Department of the Treasury announced that it has agreed to sell 553,846,153 shares of its American International Group, Inc. (AIG) common stock at $32.50 per share in an underwritten public offering. The aggregate proceeds to Treasury from the common stock offering are expected to be approximately $18.0 billion. As part of Treasury’s offering today, AIG agreed to purchase 153,846,153 shares at the public offering price of $32.50 per share – representing approximately $5.0 billion of Treasury’s expected proceeds from the sale.? Treasury has granted the underwriters a 30-day over-allotment option to purchase up to an additional 83,076,922 shares of AIG common stock. Giving effect to today’s offering, Treasury and the Federal Reserve’s combined $182 billion commitment made to stabilize AIG during the financial crisis is now fully recovered.” [Treasury Press Release, 9/10/12]PRESIDENT OBAMA PUT IN PLACE REQUIREMENTS TO ENSURE BANKS ARE HEALTHY, CUSHIONED AGAINST LOSSES, AND ABLE TO LEND TO SMALL BUSINESSES, ENTREPRENEURS, AND FAMILIESPresident Obama Required Bailed-Out Banks To Undergo “Stress Tests” Which Opened Up Bank Balance Sheets And Allowed The Weakest Banks To Be Stabilized. “Treasury worked with the federal banking regulators to develop a comprehensive, forward‐looking ‘stress test’ for the nineteen largest bank holding companies to determine which ones would need more capital to remain well‐capitalized if economic conditions deteriorated significantly more than expected. The stress test was conducted with unprecedented openness and transparency, which helped restore market confidence in our financial system. Since completion of the stress test, these banks have raised an aggregate of more than $150 billion in private capital, and twelve of the stress test banks that had TARP investments have repaid the government in full. Treasury allowed banks needing capital to apply for further assistance from the government, but only one did so.” [TARP Two Year Retrospective, U.S. Department Of Treasury, 10/5/10]President Obama’s Stress Tests For TARP Banks Were A “Key Driver Of The Recovery” Because “They Made Bank Balance Sheets More Transparent” And “Increased The Capacity Of Banks To Lend.” “’The U.S. stress tests were a key driver of the recovery from the financial crisis both because they made bank balance sheets more transparent but also because they forced banks to recapitalize, with some government help,’ says Frederic Mishkin, a Columbia Graduate School of Business economist and former Federal Reserve governor. ‘The stress tests alleviated fears in the markets that things were worse than they were and increased the capacity of banks to lend.’” [Wall Street Journal, 7/15/11]U.S. Banks Have Added More Than $420 Billion Of Additional Capital Over The Last Three Years To Cushion Against Unexpected Losses And Support Additional Lending. “Our banks have added more than $420 billion of additional capital over the last three years to: Cushion against unexpected losses. Support lending to consumers and businesses. Comply with the common-sense standards called for by Wall Street Reform.” [Department Of Treasury Report On Reforming Wall Street And Protecting Main Street, 7/18/12]Under President Obama, Banks Have Increased Their Capital Levels By 19%. According to Federal Insurance Deposit Corporation data, all banks held a total of held $1.29 trillion in equity capital the first quarter of 2009.In the first quarter of 2012, they held $1.59 trillion in bank equity capital, an increase of 19.3%.[FDIC Statistics on Depository Institutions, Accessed 9/28/12]Since 2008, Bank Core Capital Ratios Have Increased By 24%. According to Federal Insurance Deposit Corporation data, all FDIC-insured institutions had a core capital (leverage) ratio of 7.47% in 2008. In the first half of 2012, banks had an annualized core capital (leverage) ratio of 9.25%, an increase of 23.8%. [FIDC Quarterly Bank Profile June 2012, Table I-A, 9/25/12]BUSINESS LENDING AND CONSUMER BORROWING ARE UP Business Lending Has Increased By 21% Since Wall Street Reform Was Signed Into Law. According to Federal Reserve economic data, commercial and industrial loan volume stood at roughly $1.207 trillion in July 2010. In August 2010, commercial and industrial loan volume stood at roughly $1.461 trillion – an increase of 21.1%. [Federal Reserve Assets and Liabilities Of Commercial Banks in the United States, Accessed 9/29/12]March 2012: Consumer Borrowing In The U.S. Surged By The Most In More Than A Decade, With Credit Rising By $21.4 Billion – The Biggest Gain Since November 2001. “Consumer borrowing in the U.S. surged in March by the most in more than a decade on growing demand for educational financing and autos. Credit rose by $21.4 billion, the biggest gain since November 2001, to $2.54 trillion, Federal Reserve figures showed today in Washington. The advance was paced by a $16.2 billion jump in non-revolving debt, including student and car loans.” [Bloomberg, 5/7/12]Wall Street Reform Created The Consumer Financial Protection BureauWALL STREET REFORM CREATED THE CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU TO SHIELD CONSUMERS FROM UNFAIR PRACTICESWall Street Reform Created The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, The Nation’s First Federal Agency Focused Solely On Consumer Financial Protection – Shielding Consumers From Unfair, Deceptive, Or Abusive Acts Or Practices. “The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (‘CFPB’ or ‘Bureau’) is the nation’s first federal agency focused solely on consumer financial protection. The Dodd-Frank Act defines five objectives for the CFPB: to ensure that consumers have timely and understandable information to make responsible decisions about financial transactions; to protect consumers from unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts or practices, and from discrimination; to reduce outdated, unnecessary, or unduly burdensome regulations; to promote fair competition by consistent enforcement of the consumer protection laws in the Bureau’s jurisdiction; and to encourage markets for consumer financial products and services that operate transparently and efficiently and to facilitate access and innovation.” [Semi-Annual Report of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, 1/30/12]The New Consumer Watchdog Expands Enforcement Of Federal Consumer Financial Laws To Cover Non-Bank Institutions That Provide Consumer Financial Products, Like Payday Lenders And Student Loan Providers. “The CFPB will be able to examine companies that have never been subject to federal oversight to ensure that no one is gaining an unfair advantage by breaking the law. This will ultimately create more fair competition and more transparent markets for consumers. The Dodd-Frank Act authorizes the CFPB to examine all sizes of nonbank mortgage companies, payday lenders, and private education lenders.” [Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Progress Report, 7/18/11]THE NEW CONSUMER WATCHDOG HAS ORDERED CREDIT CARD COMPANIES TO PROVIDE NEARLY 6 MILLION REFUNDS TO CUSTOMERS FOR ILLEGAL FEES AND DECEPTIVE PRACTICES September 2012: The CFPB And The FDIC Ordered Discover Bank To Pay $200 Million In Refunds To More Than 3.5 Million Customers For Deceptive And Misleading Practices.?[Associated Press,?9/24/12]October 2012: The CFPB Ordered Three American Express Subsidiaries To Provide $85 Million In Refunds To 250,000 Customers For Misleading Practices And Illegal Fees.?[Reuters,?10/2/12]July 2012: The CFPB Ordered Capital One To Provide $140 Million In Refunds To 2 Million Capital One Customers Over Deceptive Marketing Practices.?[CFPB Press Release,?7/18/12]THE BUREAU IS WORKING TO MAKE THE PROCESS OF GETTING A MORTGAGE MORE CLEAR AND FAIR, AND HAS ALREADY PROPOSED EASIER-TO-USE MORTGAGE DISCLOSURE FORMS AND RULES TO PROTECT AMERICANS SHOPPING FOR A HOMEThe Bureau Is Working To Remake The Process Of Getting A Mortgage, Making It Easier For Borrowers To Understand The Kind Of Loan They Are Getting And Its Cost By The Beginning Of Next Year. “Over the next six months, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, a newly formed regulator vilified by the right, intends to overhaul the home mortgage market as a first step toward improving its fairness and clarity. The goal is to remake the process of getting a mortgage, making it easier for borrowers to understand the kind of loan they are getting and its cost. Such an achievement by the bureau — a lightning rod for criticism of the Dodd-Frank regulatory law passed by Congress in 2010 — would help to establish its legitimacy and quiet its critics as it approaches its first birthday this month.” [New York Times, 7/5/12]The Financial Crisis Devastated American FamiliesTHE FINANCIAL CRISIS DEVASTATED FAMILIES ACROSS THE COUNTRYFollowing The Failure Of Lehman Brothers, “Stock Prices Began A Free Fall, Undermining The Wealth And The Retirement Accounts Of Millions Of Americans.” “The latest job numbers were stark evidence of a breakdown in consumer spending and business investment since mid-September, when the Treasury Department and the Federal Reserve decided to let?Lehman Brothers?fail, delivering a shock to the financial sector. Almost simultaneously, stock prices began a free fall, undermining the wealth and the retirement accounts of millions of Americans.” [New York Times, 12/5/2008]Mortgage Bankers Association: “One In 10 Mortgage Holders Was Either Delinquent On Loans In September Or In Foreclosure.”?“With home prices still in decline, one in 10 mortgage holders was either delinquent on loans in September or in foreclosure, the Mortgage Bankers Association reported Friday. That was up from 9.2 percent in June and the highest percentage since the association began to collect this data 30 years ago.” [New York Times, 12/5/2008]Pushback: Wall Street Reform Is Crippling Small BanksWALL STREET REFORM WORKS TO PROTECT THE INTERESTS OF SMALL BANKS AND THEIR CUSTOMERS, AND MALL BANKS HAVE BECOME STRONGER AFTER DODD-FRANK WAS PASSEDIndependent Community Bankers Of America President Cam Fine: “I Am Sick Of Wall Street Using Community Banks As Their Shills To Scare Community Bankers Into Stampeding Congress Into Undoing Provisions Of Law That Finally Attempt To Deal With Too Big To Fail And Wall Street Overreach.” “Independent Community Bankers of America President Cam Fine emails regarding yesterday's item on the Stifel report slamming Dodd-Frank for numerous things including its alleged impact on community banks: ‘There is more fear than fact here… Wall Street is doing all it can to convince the industry and congress that community banks -not Wall Street- are the real targets of new regulations passed specifically to apply only to mega Wall Street firms. I am sick of Wall Street using community banks as their shills to scare community bankers into stampeding Congress into undoing provisions of law that finally attempt to deal with too big to fail and Wall Street overreach.’” [Politico, 6/1/12]National Journal Fact Check: Contrary To Claims, Independent Banks Have Actually Gotten Stronger Since Dodd-Frank If Measured By Return On Assets, Which Has Doubled. “Newt Gingrich, in his customary criticism of the financial regulation bill, Dodd-Frank, incorrectly asserted that the legislation is destroying community banks. ‘The fact is Dodd-Frank led the biggest banks to get bigger,’ Gingrich said during Monday night’s debate. ‘It is crushing independent banks. It has an anti-housing bias.’ Politifact ruled the statement as false when Gingrich made the same claim in New Hampshire in November. In fact, independent banks have actually gotten stronger since the passage of Dodd-Frank if measured by their return on assets, which has doubled.” [National Journal, 1/24/12]Since The Passage Of Wall Street Reform, Community Banks Have Become Twice As Profitable. According to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, return on assets is the “basic yardstick of bank profitability.” In the second quarter of 2012, community banks insured by the FDIC (defined as “institutions with less than $1 billion in assets”) had a return on assets of 0.8. In the quarter the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 was signed into law, community banks had a return on assets of 0.4. [Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Quarterly Banking Profile Q2 2012, 8/27/12; Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Quarterly Banking Profile Q3 2010, 12/20/10]Independent Community Bankers Of America Senior Vice President Chris Cole: “Community Banks On The Whole Are Healthier Than They Were [In 2010].” “While it wouldn’t be fair to give Dodd-Frank full credit for that improvement (the improving economy is probably a factor), neither is it accurate to credit the law with the demise of the industry when the reports of that demise are premature. Not only are they not dead, ‘community banks on the whole are healthier than they were last year,’ said Chris Cole, senior vice president of the Independent Community Bankers of America.” [Tampa Bay Times, Politifact, 11/11/11]Wall Street Reform Exempts 98% Of Community Banks From New Capital And Liquidity Requirements. “Banks that hold less than $10 billion in assets, or roughly 98 percent of the 7,000 community banks scattered across the country, are immune from new capital and liquidity requirements [in Wall Street Reform], for example.” [New York Times, DealBook Blog, 5/23/11]Pushback: President Obama Didn’t End “Too Big To Fail”WALL STREET REFORM ENDED TOO BIG TO FAILWALL STREET REFORM ENDS THE ERA OF “TOO BIG TO FAIL” AND THE POSSIBILITY OF TAXPAYER BAILOUTSWall Street Reform Expressly Prohibits Taxpayer Bailouts For Financial Institutions And Provides For The Orderly Liquidation Of Failing Financial Firms Funded By Bank Assets And Assessments. “The Act provides for the orderly liquidation of systemically important, failing financial companies and: Generally subjects these failing systemic financial companies (i.e., covered financial companies), including brokers and/or dealers and insurance companies, to orderly liquidation, subject to a systemic risk determination involving the FDIC, FRB, and Treasury (in consultation with the President)…The Act expressly prohibits taxpayer bailouts by: Providing that shareholders receive no payments until all other claims are paid (including claims of the FDIC and other governmental entities). Requiring unsecured creditors to bear losses in accordance with priority of claims provisions. Requiring the FDIC to ensure that management and board members responsible for failure are removed. If receivership assets are insufficient to cover the costs of orderly liquidation, requiring any funds expended in the liquidation of any financial company to be recovered through assessments as described in the Act.” [Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Staff Summary Of Wall Street Reform, 9/10/10]Former FDIC Chair Sheila Bair: “Dodd-Frank Means What It Says: No More Bailouts.” “Before the financial crisis, the supersizers benefited from high levels of leverage and cheap debt funding costs from their ‘too big to fail’ status. All that has changed. Capital requirements are going up significantly for mega-institutions. The cost of borrowing will rise, too, as bondholders come to realize that Dodd-Frank means what it says: no more bailouts.” [Sheila Bair Op-Ed, Fortune Magazine, 1/18/12]THE U.S. BANKING SYSTEM IS NOW BETTER CAPITALIZED, WITH BANK CAPITAL LEVELS AT OR NEAR RECORDSU.S. Banks Have Added More Than $420 Billion Of Additional Capital Over The Last Three Years To Cushion Against Unexpected Losses And Support Additional Lending. “Our banks have added more than $420 billion of additional capital over the last three years to: Cushion against unexpected losses. Support lending to consumers and businesses. Comply with the common-sense standards called for by Wall Street Reform.” [Department Of Treasury Report On Reforming Wall Street And Protecting Main Street, 7/18/12]Under President Obama, Banks Have Increased Their Capital Levels By 19%. According to Federal Insurance Deposit Corporation data, all banks held a total of held $1.29 trillion in equity capital the first quarter of 2009.In the first quarter of 2012, they held $1.59 trillion in bank equity capital, an increase of 19.3%.[FDIC Statistics on Depository Institutions, Accessed 9/28/12]Since 2008, Bank Core Capital Ratios Have Increased By 24%. According to Federal Insurance Deposit Corporation data, all FDIC-insured institutions had a core capital (leverage) ratio of 7.47% in 2008. In the first half of 2012, banks had an annualized core capital (leverage) ratio of 9.25%, an increase of 23.8%. [FIDC Quarterly Bank Profile June 2012, Table I-A, 9/25/12]TODAY, THE UNITED STATES HAS THE SMALLEST BANKING SYSTEM AS A SHARE OF GDP AND THE LEAST CONCENTRATED BANKING SYSTEM AMONG MAJOR ECONOMIESThe United States Has Smallest Banking System As A Share Of GDPAmong Major Economies. Measured by total banking system assets as a percent of GDP by country, in 2011 the United States had the smallest banking system relative to all major economies – including Japan, Germany, Italy, France, the United Kingdom, and China. [The Clearing House “Scaled To Serve” Report, July 2012]The United States The Least Concentrated Banking System Among Major Economies. Measured by assets as a country’s top 4 bank’s assets by percent of GDP by country, in 2011 the United States’ five largest commercial banks were a smaller portion of total GDP than any of the other G7 nations. [The Clearing House “Scaled To Serve” Report, July 2012]Pushback: Wall Street Reform Is Slowing The EconomyTHERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT WALL STREET REFORM IS SLOWING THE ECONOMYUNDER PRESIDENT OBAMA, THE COST OF CREDIT FOR MAJOR CONSUMER FINANCIAL PRODUCTS HAS FALLEN TO PRE-CRISIS LEVELSUnder President Obama, The Cost Of Credit For Major Consumer Financial Products Have Returned To Pre-Crisis Levels. According to Treasury Department calculations, credit costs (as measured by return of yields of asset-backed securities) in agency mortgages, auto loans, and credit cards have all returned to their pre-crisis levels. [U.S. Department of the Treasury Financial Crisis Response Charts, 4/13/12]THE DOW JONES INDUSTRIAL AVERAGE HAS MORE THAN DOUBLED SINCE ITS LOWEST POINT JUST WEEKS AFTER PRESIDENT OBAMA TOOK OFFICE Since Its Lowest Point Under President Obama Just Weeks After He Took Office, The Dow Jones Industrial Average Has More Than Doubled. The Dow Jones Industrial average stood at 6,469.95 on March 6th, 2009. The Dow Jones Industrial average stood at 13,579.47 on September 21st, 2012. [Dow Jones Industrial Average Historical Data, Accessed Via , 9/22/12]For Stock Investors, President Obama Has Been “One Of The Best Presidents Since World War Two.” “Barack Obama often gets slammed for his stewardship of the U.S. economy, but for stock investors, he's been one of the best presidents since World War Two. At 1,400, the S&P 500 on Friday was closing in on a four-year high and was up 74 percent since January 20, 2009, the day Obama took office. Not since Dwight Eisenhower's first term has a president had such a strong run for their first term.” [Reuters, 8/10/12]Investment In Equipment And Software Is Up 30 Percent Since The Recovery. In the second quarter of 2009, investment in equipment and software totaled $873.2 billion. In the second quarter of 2012, investment in equipment and software was $1.142 trillion, a 30.86 percent increase over the second quarter of 2009. [Bureau Of Economic Analysis, Table 1.1.6, accessed 9/22/12]ATTACKRomney Would Repeal Wall Street ReformROMNEY VOWS TO REPEAL WALL STREET REFORM BUT HAS NO PLANS FOR PREVENTING ANOTHER FINANCIAL CRISISHeadline: “Mitt Romney Mum On How To Regulate Big Banks” [Boston Globe, 5/2/12]Romney Pledge To Repeal Dodd-Frank But Has Been Silent On How He Would Prevent Wall Street From Engaging In The Risky Practices That Helped Cause The 2008 Financial Crisis. “Republican Mitt Romney is pledging, if he is elected president, to repeal the Dodd-Frank financial regulations, a position favored by donors on Wall Street who have sent millions the candidate’s way. But he is nearly silent on how - without the regulation - he would prevent Wall Street from once again engaging in the risky practices that helped cause the 2008 financial crisis.” [Boston Globe, 5/2/12]In His 150 Page Economic Plan, Romney Does Not Specify What Kind Of Financial Regulation Is Necessary. “Romney has been particularly vague about the Wall Street crash and the causes of the Great Recession. His 150-page economic plan acknowledges that financial regulation is necessary, but he doesn't specify which kind.” [TIME, 12/12/11]ROMNEY’S CASHES IN WITH WALL STREET AFTER CALLING FOR THE REPEAL OF WALL STREET REFORM Business Insider Headline: “The Wall Street 1% Are Raking In The Cash For Mitt Romney.” [Business Insider, 10/31/11]CNN Headline: “Wall Street Bets Big On Romney.” [CNN, 2/1/12]McClatchy Headline: “Big Banks Have Picked Their Candidate, And It's Romney.” [McClatchy, 1/15/12]Bloomberg Headline: “Private-Equity Partners Rally Around Romney’s Dodd-Frank Cure” [Bloomberg, 2/3/12]Boston Globe: “Republican Mitt Romney Is Pledging, If He Is Elected President, To Repeal The Dodd-Frank Financial Regulations, A Position Favored By Donors On Wall Street Who Have Sent Millions The Candidate’s Way.” [Boston Globe, 5/2/12]Romney Would Repeal The Volcker RuleROMNEY HAS PLEDGED TO REPEAL WALL STREET REFORM, AND WITH IT THE VOLCKER RULEWall Street Reform’s Volcker Rule Prevents Banks Profiting From Bets With Their Customers’ Money. “Named for Paul A. Volcker, a former Federal Reserve chairman who campaigned for the rule, [Wall Street Reform’s Volcker Rule] aims to curb outsize risk-taking on Wall Street. The rule would limit most proprietary trading, where a bank places bets for itself rather than for clients, a major money maker for the industry.” [The New York Times, 10/17/11]Romney Policy Director Lanhee Chen Said The Volcker Rule’s Ban On Proprietary Trading “Has Lots Of Problems” And Romney Would Repeal And Replace It. “Romney — whose record at the private equity firm Bain Capital has come under relentless attacks from the Obama camp — has signaled that he sides with the Wall Street giants on these questions. His policy director Lanhee Chen noted in June that the Volcker rule’s ban on proprietary trading ‘has a lot of problems’ and that it would be ‘one of the problematic elements that, quite frankly, Gov. Romney would seek to replace.’” [Politico, 8/17/12]The Volcker Rule – Which Romney Would Repeal – Sought To Ban Exactly The Type Of Major Loss Of Depositor Money JP Morgan Announced With A $2 Billion Loss From Investing In Derivatives. “On a conference call with analysts, JP Morgan CEO Jamie Dimon announced that his firm had lost $2 billion investing in the same species of derivative that exacerbated the 2008 financial crisis. Dimon claims the company is prepared to absorb the loss, but it puts the reputation of one of the only big firms to weather the 2008 financial crisis directly on the line. This is exactly the type of major loss of depositor money that the Obama administration sought to ban with one of the major planks of its 2010 Dodd-Frank Wall Street reform law — the Volcker Rule, named after former Fed chairman Paul Volcker. And that’s bad news for Romney, who wants to repeal the whole law, Volcker Rule and all.” [Talking Points Memo, 5/11/12]Romney On JPMorgan’s $2 Billion Loss: “I Would Not Rush To Pass New Legislation Or New Regulation. This Is, In The Normal Course Of Business, A Large Loss But Certainly Not One Which Is Crippling Or Threatening To The Institution.” [Ed Morrissey Show, 5/16/12]Romney Pointed Out That Someone Else Gained From JPMorgan’s $2 Billion “Bad Decision” And Said “That’s The Way America Works.” Romney said of JPMorgan’s $2 billion loss: “This was a loss to shareholders and owners of JPMorgan and that’s the way American works – America works. Some people experience a loss in this case because of a bad decision. By the way, there was someone who made a gain alright. The $2 billion JPMorgan lost, someone else gained.” [Ed Morrissey Show, 5/16/12]Headline: “Romney Campaign Defends JPMorgan Loss As Market Risk” [Reuters, 5/15/12]Romney Said Banks Are Stronger NowROMNEY: OUR BANKS ARE MUCH STRONGER NOWRomney: “Our Banks Are On A Much Stronger Basis Than They Were At The Time Of The Last Economic Crisis And They Have Built Their Capital Base And Their Equity Base And Worked Through A Lot Of Their Toxic Assets, Their Toxic Loans.” SCHIEFFER: “Let’s talk a little bit about the economy. Yesterday, the British government said it would be injecting billions of dollars of cash into its banks to protect the economy there in light of what some are calling the most dangerous point in the financial crisis in over two years in Europe. If the European economy falls apart, the American economy is going to be in big trouble. What should we be doing right now? …I mean, I`m talking about what if this whole thing falls in, in Europe? What should we be doing here? Should we become involved? What do we do?” ROMNEY: “Well, we’re not going to send checks to Europe. We’re not going to bail out the European banks. We’re going to be poised here to support our economy, but I’m very much in favor of the fundamental things one does to strengthen the economic footings of a nation. And as to what’s going to happen in Europe and what kind of impact that will have here, time will tell. But our banks are on a much stronger basis than they were at the time of the last economic crisis, and they have built their capital base and equity base and worked through a lot of their toxic assets, their toxic loans. And I hope that, regardless of what happens in Europe, that our banking sector is able to weather the storm.” [Face the Nation, CBS, 6/17/12]WELFARE WORK REQUIREMENTSCONTRASTPresident Obama’s Action Would Not Gut Welfare Work Requirements -- ShortFACT CHECKERS AGREE THAT THE PRESIDENT’S WELFARE ACTION WOULD NOT GUT WELFARE WORK REQUIREMENTS, BUT INSTEAD OFFER STATES FLEXIBILITY IF THEY MOVE MORE PEOPLE FROM WELFARE TO WORKNational Public Radio:“Republican Mitt Romney Keeps Saying That President Obama Has Gutted The Law, Even Though Every Major Fact-Checking Organization Says The Attacks Are False.” [National Public Radio, 8/22/12]Five States Led By Governors Of Both Parties Have Requested Welfare Waivers. “Romney was referring to a July directive issued by the Department of Health and Human Services that would grant waivers to states in how they administer welfare. Five states led by governors of both parties have requested such waivers to reduce red tape.” [Los Angeles Times, 8/7/12]CNN Fact Checker: The Idea For Welfare Waivers “Did Not Originate Here In Washington… Several States, Including Some With Republican Governors Asked The Federal Government For More Flexibility.” From a CNN transcript: “COSTELLO: The Romney campaign rolling out yet another commercial blasting President Obama for stripping the work requirement out of welfare. Republicans are expected to attack the President on that point at their convention, too, but is it true? Our fact checker Tom Foreman has been sifting through the evidence… FOREMAN: So where did this come from, this notion of a giant change in welfare rules? Oddly enough, it did not originate here in Washington, but rather out in the country. Several states, including some with Republican governors asked the federal government for more flexibility in how they hand out welfare dollars. Specifically, they want to spend less time on federal paperwork and more time experimenting with what they hope will be better ways of getting people connected to jobs. So the administration has granted waivers from some of the existing rules.”?[CNN Fact Check, 08/22/12]Secretary Sebelius: States Must Commit That Their Proposals Will Move 20 Percent More People From Welfare To Work And Demonstrate Clear Progress Toward That Goal Within A Year, Or Their Waivers Will Be Rescinded. Secretary Sebelius wrote, “Specifically, Governors must commit that their proposals will move at least 20% more people from welfare to work compared to the state’s past performance. States must also demonstrate clear progress toward that goal no later than one year after their programs take effect. If they fail, their waivers will be rescinded.” [Letter from Secretary Sebelius to Dave Camp, Ways and Means Committee Chairman, 07/18/12]Chicago Tribune Editorial: “States Would Be Expected To Boost By At Least 20 Percent The Number Of Recipients Moving From Welfare To Work And Regularly Demonstrate They’re Moving Toward That Goal.” “What we saw was an opening for the states to get some flexibility to promote new ways to get welfare recipients onto payrolls. States would be expected to boost by at least 20 percent the number of recipients moving from welfare to work and regularly demonstrate they're moving toward that goal.” [Editorial, Chicago Tribune, 08/09/12]Fact-Checkers Have Debunked Romney And Ryan’s False Attacks On Welfare Waivers -- LongMITT ROMNEY AND PAUL RYAN CONTINUE FALSE ATTACKS ON THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION’S WELFARE ACTION, EVEN THOUGH “EVERY MAJOR FACT-CHECKING ORGANIZATION SAYS THE ATTACKS ARE FALSE”National Public Radio:“Republican Mitt Romney Keeps Saying That President Obama Has Gutted The Law, Even Though Every Major Fact-Checking Organization Says The Attacks Are False.” [National Public Radio, 8/22/12]New York Times Editorial: Mitt Romney’s Claim Is “Blatantly False.” “Mitt Romney’s campaign has hit new depths of truth-twisting with its accusation that President Obama plans to ‘gut welfare reform’ by ending federal work requirements. The claim is blatantly false, but it says a great deal about Mr. Romney’s increasingly desperate desire to define the president as something he is not.” [Editorial, New York Times, 08/09/12] Associated Press: “Paul Ryan Says President Obama Wants To Ease Work Requirements For Welfare Recipients Even Though That Claim Has Been Largely Debunked By Independent Fact Checkers.” “Republican vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan says President Barack Obama wants to ease work requirements for welfare recipients even though that claim has been largely debunked by independent fact checkers.” [Associated Press, 08/24/12]CNN Fact Checker: “This Is Clearly Not An Effort By The President To Kill Off The Welfare Work Requirements... And We Rate It False.” From a CNN transcript: “COSTELLO: The Romney campaign rolling out yet another commercial blasting President Obama for stripping the work requirement out of welfare. Republicans are expected to attack the President on that point at their convention, too, but is it true? Our fact checker Tom Foreman has been sifting through the evidence.?…FOREMAN: That might in a small way change precisely how work is calculated, but the essential goal of pushing welfare recipients to work remains in place. That's pretty much it. This is clearly not an effort by the President to kill off the welfare work requirements. That's why even some Republicans backed away. Governor Romney's claim doesn't work. And we rate it false. Tom Foreman, CNN, Washington.” [CNN Fact Check, 08/22/12]PRESIDENT CLINTON CRITICIZED ROMNEY’S ATTACKS AND CONFIRMED PRESIDENT OBAMA’S COMMITMENT TO STRENGTHENING THE CENTRAL TENETS OF WELFARE REFORMPresident Clinton: Governor Romney’s Ad Alleging That President Obama Weakened The Work Requirements Of The 1996 Welfare Reform Act “Is Not True.” “Governor Romney released an ad today alleging that the Obama administration had weakened the work requirements of the 1996 Welfare Reform Act. That is not true.” [Statement by President Bill Clinton on Governor Mitt Romney's New Television Advertisement, 08/07/12]Washington Post: Romney’s Ad Drew “A Direct Rebuke Of Romney By Clinton Himself, Who Called It False.” “But the charge drew immediate push back from the Obama campaign, and a direct rebuke of Romney by Clinton himself, who called it false.” [Washington Post, 08/13/12]President Clinton: “The Welfare Time Limits, Another Important Feature Of The 1996 Act, Will Not Be Waived.” [Statement by President Bill Clinton on Governor Mitt Romney's New Television Advertisement, 08/07/12]A REPUBLICAN ARCHITECT OF WELFARE REFORM, RON HASKINS, AND REPUBLICANS LIKE NEWT GINGRICH, ADMIT THERE IS NOT SUPPORT FOR THE ROMNEY CAMPAIGN’S ATTACK SUPPORTS WAIVERS AND CRITICIZED MITT ROMNEY’S ADWashington Post Wonkblog: One Of The Architects Of Welfare Reform, Ron Haskins, Argues That Waivers Are What Made Welfare Reform Possible And Enthusiastically Supports The Actual Policy Of The Waivers.?“But Haskins enthusiastically supports the actual policy of the waivers. Waivers are what made welfare reform possible in the first place, he argues, by letting states experiment with new practices and they can be useful going forward. For instance, he thinks they might offer a way around limitations that prevent welfare checks from going to employers to subsidize the hiring of welfare recipients, rather than to the recipients directly. Such combined welfare-work programs, Haskins believes, hold a lot of promise… In sum, Haskins says, ‘The Republican alarm on welfare reform might be a little exaggerated.’ Coming from one of the architects of the reform, that should cast some doubt on Romney’s attacks.” [Washington Post, WonkBlog,?8/7/12]Ron Haskins: “There’s No Plausible Scenario Under Which It Really Constitutes A Serious Attack On Welfare Reform.” “There's no plausible scenario under which it really constitutes a serious attack on welfare reform.” [National Public Radio Morning Edition, 08/08/12]Ron Haskins, A Republican Architect Of Welfare Reform: “Romney Himself Talks About Giving The States More Flexibility… Now All Of A Sudden The States Shouldn’t Get The Flexibility Because They Are Going To Mess It Up? It Doesn’t Make Sense.” From : “Haskins notes that historically the ‘Republicans are the ones who talk about giving the states more flexibility. Romney himself talks about giving the states more flexibility. Now all of a sudden the states shouldn’t get the flexibility because they are going to mess it up?’ he says. ‘It doesn’t make sense.’” [, 08/09/12]Huffington Post Headline: “Ron Haskins, GOP Welfare Reform Architect, Criticizes Mitt Romney’s Newt Gingrich: “We Have No Proof” To Support Romney’s Welfare Attack. “COOPER: So you think the wording of the ad is not actually accurate, that it is too straightforward? GINGRICH: Well, I think the ad does assert, but this is a political ad. In 30 seconds you tend not to get all the various amendments and things…COOPER: But accuracy is important. …GINGRICH: We have no proof today, but I would say to you under Obama’s ideology it is absolutely true that he would be comfortable sending a lot of people checks for doing nothing.” [CNN’s Anderson Cooper 360, 08/08/12]Pushback: President Obama Opposed Work Requirements As A SenatorPRESIDENT OBAMA BELIEVES THAT WE NEED TO MAKE SURE RESPONSIBILITY MEETS OPPORTUNITY, GUIDED HIS THINKING ON WELFARE REFORMS AS AN ILLINOIS SENATOR AND AS PRESIDENTAS STATE SENATOR, OBAMA WORKED WITH ILLINOIS REPUBLICANS TO MAKE WELFARE REFORM WORK BETTER AND THEY PRAISED HIS ROLE IN HELPING TO MOVE PEOPLE FROM WELFARE TO WORKPresident Obama While State Senator: “I Think It Is Undeniable That Work Is Better Than Welfare.” In remarks at Carleton College, then-State Senator Obama said, “The first question which is fairly specific is about welfare reform. As most of you know I think, in 1996 the Republican Congress passed and President Clinton signed a welfare reform bill that essentially ended a 60 year entitlement to welfare. I was a strong proponent of some reform of the welfare system. I would not probably have supported the federal system – the federal bill that was passed. I think it is undeniable that work is better than welfare, because work provides not only income, but it also orders peoples’ lives and incorporates them into the larger society in ways that are helping.” [Remarks by Barack Obama at Carleton College in Minnesota, audio: 2/5/99]Obama Worked With Republicans To Enact An Overhaul Of Welfare In Illinois And Was Thanked By Republicans During The Debate For His Long Hours Helping Them Improve The Bill.? “After federal officials agreed on an overhaul of the nation's welfare system, Obama worked with Republicans to enact those changes in Illinois. During the debate, two GOP senators made a point of thanking Obama for his long hours of helping them improve the bill.” [Associated Press, 6/25/08]Republican Illinois State Sen. Dave Syverson Praised Obama For Working On Welfare Reform That Would “Be Helping Tens Of Thousands Of Individuals Move From The Welfare Rolls To The Work Rolls.” ??“We’ve worked with a number of the unions, as well, again, with people on both sides of the aisle, to draft language that has been acceptable to everybody, that is going to protect those individuals who are currently working. Those are some of the--overall highlights. I would like to take a second to—to thank Senator Obama for the—the hours of time that he spent with us in trying to work out a plan that is acceptable and workable. We believe that with this in place that we will be helping tens of thousands of individuals move from the welfare rolls to the work rolls.” [Illinois General Assembly Remarks, 5/31/97]Republican Illinois State Sen. Kathleen Parker Commended Obama For His Bipartisan Support On Welfare Reform. “I would like to say a couple of things. First of all, to commend the Chairman, Senator Syverson, who did a lot of work on this issue, and Senator Obama, for his bipartisan support and work, and all of the comments that were made here.” [Illinois General Assembly Remarks, 5/31/97]Illinois State Senator Dave Syverson (R-IL): “[Obama] Was Not Your Typical Party-Line Politician. A Lot Of Democrats Didn’t Want To Have Any Work Requirement At All For People On Welfare. Barack Was Willing To Make That Deal.”? “After three years as a civil rights lawyer and law professor in Chicago, Obama was elected to the Illinois state senate and quickly established himself as different from most of the other African-American legislators. ‘He was passionate in his views,’ says state senator Dave Syverson, a Republican committee chairman who worked on welfare reform with Obama. ‘We had some pretty fierce arguments. We went round and round about how much to spend on day care, for example. But he was not your typical party-line politician. A lot of Democrats didn't want to have any work requirement at all for people on welfare. Barack was willing to make that deal.’” [TIME, 10/15/06]Buzzfeed Headline: “Obama Received Praise From Republicans For Helping Implement Welfare-To-Work In The State Senate In?1997.” [BuzzFeed, 08/07/12]The Number Of Illinois Families On TANF Reduced 78% From FY 1998-FY 2006.?According to the Administration For Children And Families Office of Family Assistance, the number of TANF families in Illinois reduced from 167,124 in FY 1998 to 36,331 in FY 2006. This constitutes a 78 percent reduction. [Health And Human Services Data, FY 1998-FY2006]President Obama’s Welfare Waivers Increase States’ FlexibilityTHE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION’S WELFARE ACTION ALLOWS STATES FLEXIBILITY IN IMPLEMENTING WELFARE REFORM LAWS, BUT ONLY IF THEY STRENGTHEN THE WELFARE WORK REQUIREMENTS STATES, ESPECIALLY REPUBLICAN-LED STATES LIKE UTAH AND NEVADA, HAVE ASKED FOR MORE FLEXIBILITY SO THAT THEY CAN CREATE MORE SUCCESSFUL PROGRAMSFive States Led By Governors Of Both Parties Have Requested Welfare Waivers. “Romney was referring to a July directive issued by the Department of Health and Human Services that would grant waivers to states in how they administer welfare. Five states led by governors of both parties have requested such waivers to reduce red tape.” [Los Angeles Times, 8/7/12]The Hill: “The Increase In State Flexibility Provided By The Obama Plan Is Something Republicans Have Long Supported In Areas As Diverse As Healthcare, Education And Even Welfare Reform.” [The Hill, 8/07/12]CNN Fact Checker: The Idea For Welfare Waivers “Did Not Originate Here In Washington… Several States, Including Some With Republican Governors Asked The Federal Government For More Flexibility.” From a CNN transcript: “COSTELLO: The Romney campaign rolling out yet another commercial blasting President Obama for stripping the work requirement out of welfare. Republicans are expected to attack the President on that point at their convention, too, but is it true? Our fact checker Tom Foreman has been sifting through the evidence… FOREMAN: So where did this come from, this notion of a giant change in welfare rules? Oddly enough, it did not originate here in Washington, but rather out in the country. Several states, including some with Republican governors asked the federal government for more flexibility in how they hand out welfare dollars. Specifically, they want to spend less time on federal paperwork and more time experimenting with what they hope will be better ways of getting people connected to jobs. So the administration has granted waivers from some of the existing rules.”?[CNN Fact Check, 08/22/12]Utah And Nevada, Both With Republican Governors, Had Specifically Asked For Waivers From The Requirements Because The Rules Were Preventing Them From Running More Effective Welfare Programs. “States have said that such rules are preventing them from running more-effective welfare programs, and the Obama administration said that two states, Utah and Nevada, had specifically asked for waivers from the requirements. Both states have Republican governors.” [Wall Street Journal, 7/13/12]THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION’S WAIVERS STRENGTHEN WELFARE-TO-WORK REQUIREMENTS BY REQUIRING STATES TO MOVE AT LEAST 20 PERCENT MORE PEOPLE TO WORKSecretary Sebelius: States Must Commit That Their Proposals Will Move 20 Percent More People From Welfare To Work And Demonstrate Clear Progress Toward That Goal Within A Year, Or Their Waivers Will Be Rescinded. Secretary Sebelius wrote, “Specifically, Governors must commit that their proposals will move at least 20% more people from welfare to work compared to the state’s past performance. States must also demonstrate clear progress toward that goal no later than one year after their programs take effect. If they fail, their waivers will be rescinded.” [Letter from Secretary Sebelius to Dave Camp, Ways and Means Committee Chairman, 07/18/12]Chicago Tribune Editorial: “States Would Be Expected To Boost By At Least 20 Percent The Number Of Recipients Moving From Welfare To Work And Regularly Demonstrate They’re Moving Toward That Goal.” “What we saw was an opening for the states to get some flexibility to promote new ways to get welfare recipients onto payrolls. States would be expected to boost by at least 20 percent the number of recipients moving from welfare to work and regularly demonstrate they're moving toward that goal.” [Chicago Tribune editorial, 08/09/12]The Obama Administration Would Not Approve Any Waiver Likely To Reduce Access To Employment. “The Obama administration said in the letter that it would consider granting waivers from work participation requirements for an array of projects, but that it would not approve any waiver likely to reduce access to employment.” [Associated Press, 8/7/12]Washington Post WonkBlog: “The Obama Administration Is Not Removing The Bill’s Work Requirements At All.” “In this case, the Obama administration is not removing the bill’s work requirements at all. He’s changing them to allow states more flexibility. But the principle that welfare programs must require recipients to move toward employment isn’t going anywhere.” [Washington Post, WonkBlog, 7/17/12]ATTACKRomney Called For Welfare WaiversAS GOVERNOR, ROMNEY CALLED ON THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION TO GRANT MORE FLEXIBILITY TO STATES FOR THE WELFARE WORK REQUIREMENTS??2005: Governor Romney Signed A Letter In Support Of Welfare Waivers, Saying They Wanted The States To Have More Flexibility In Administering Welfare Dollars. “Sebelius has noted that in 2005, a lot of Republican governors -- including one?Mitt Romney?of Massachusetts -- signed a letter saying they wanted more flexibility in administering welfare dollars. They wanted the HHS to have ‘increased waiver authority.’ That’s true.” [Bloomberg, 07/23/12]?Think Progress Headline: “In 2005, Romney Supported Waivers He Now Claims Will ‘Undermine’ Welfare Reform.” [Think Progress, 07/18/12]?New York Times:“Seven Years Ago, Mitt Romney Joined Other Governors To Urge The Federal Government To Grant ‘Increased Waiver Authority’ To States To Experiment With Implementation Of The Federal Welfare-To-Work Program.” [New York Times, 8/7/12]?2005: Romney Requested More State Flexibility To Manage Their TANF Programs Including: Increased Waiver Authority, Allowable Work Activities, Availability Of Partial Work Credit And The Ability To Coordinate State Programs Are All Important Aspects Of Moving Recipients From Welfare To ernor Mitt Romney signed a RGA letter to Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist: “State flexibility – The Senate bill provides states with the flexibility to manage their TANF programs and effectively serve low-income populations. Increased waiver authority, allowable work activities, availability of partial work credit and the ability to coordinate state programs are all important aspects of moving recipients from welfare to work.” [Republican Governors Association letter to Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, 5/19/05]THEMATICSADMINISTRATION “SCANDALS”/ SECRECYPRO-POTUSToplines – President Obama’s Record of TransparencyTHE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION CREATED AND TO MAKE GOVERNMENT DATA MORE ACCESSIBLEThe Obama Administration Launched , A Centralized Database Publishing Ethics Data Including Lobbying And White House Visitor Records.?“The Obama administration launched a centralized web platform for the public to view ethics data on Thursday, the latest step the administration has taken to make its records more accessible. The website,?, will publish White House visitor records, Office of Government Ethics travel reports, lobbying disclosure data, and Department of Justice Foreign Agents Registration Act data. It will also publish Federal Election Commission individual contribution, candidate and committee reports.” [National Journal,?3/8/12]2009: The Obama Administration Launched , Making Government Data More Accessible To The Public. “The Obama administration is making government data more accessible with the launch of a new Web site Thursday. An Office of Management and Budget representative tells CNN that in the next two to three weeks, the administration expects to use the new site,?, to host more than 200,000 'datasets' - groupings of governmental information like the results of the last government survey of residential energy use. The site is currently home to 46 'raw' datasets and 27 information tools, the OMB said in a statement announcing the site… The Obama administration says the site is an early step in making government data more available to the public.” [CNN, 5/21/09]FOR THE FIRST TIME EVER, THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION HAS DISCLOSED THE NAMES OF MILLIONS OF VISITORS WHO COME TO THE WHITE HOUSEFor The First Time Ever, the White House Voluntarily Disclosed Its Visitor Access Records. “The President has decided to increase governmental transparency by implementing a voluntary disclosure policy governing White House visitor access records.? The White House will release, on a monthly basis, all previously unreleased WAVES and ACR access records that are 90 to 120 days old.? For example, records created in January 2010 will be released at the end of April 2010.? The short time lag will allow the White House to continue to conduct business, while still providing the American people with an unprecedented amount of information about their government.? No previous White House has ever adopted such a policy.” [, accessed 10/26/11]As Of May 2012, The White House Had Released Over 2.3 Million Visitor Records. [, 5/25/12]THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION BANNED GIFTS FROM LOBBYISTS AND BARRED LOBBYISTS FROM BEING APPOINTED TO FEDERAL ADVISORY PANELSObama Banned Lobbyists From Giving Gifts To Members Of His Administration.?"In a first-day flurry of activity, President Barack Obama on Wednesday set up shop in the Oval Office, summoned advisers to begin dealing with war and recession and ordered new lobbying rules for 'a clean break from business as usual.'...Obama's new lobbying rules will ban aides from trying to influence the administration when they leave his staff. Those already hired will be banned from working on matters they have previously lobbied on, or to approach agencies that they once targeted. The rules also ban lobbyists from giving gifts of any size to any member of his administration." [NBC News,?1/21/09]President Obama Signed An Executive Order Sharply Restricting Lobbyist Jobs In The Administration. “Let's count the ways President Obama's operation has shown its disdain for Washington lobbyists. In 2007, the Obama for America campaign told federally registered lobbyists it wouldn't accept their contributions. That was really OK with a lot of them. But then, after Election Day, the Obama organization restricted the roles lobbyists could play in the transition. The day after Obama was sworn in, he signed an executive order that sharply restricts lobbyists' job prospects in the administration. Under the order, an agency can't hire a lobbyist to work in his or her area of expertise unless the White House grants a waiver.” [National Public Radio, 5/5/09]The Hill: The Obama Administration Has “Slowed The Revolving Door Between Government And The Private Sector.” “Since 2009, President Obama has sought to place several restrictions on lobbyists. Those moves won praise from watchdog groups, which said the White House was paying heed to the ethics and influence-peddling issues that Obama talked about on the campaign trail. The administration has slowed the revolving door between government and the private sector by forbidding lobbyists from taking jobs in the executive branch; banning individuals who have left the administration from then lobbying their ex-colleagues; and restricting lobbying on the stimulus package.” [The Hill, 10/12/11]The Obama Administration Removed Lobbyists From Federal Advisory Panels In A “Far-Reaching Lobbying Rule Change” Intended To Curb K Street’s Influence. “Hundreds, if not thousands, of lobbyists are likely to be ejected from federal advisory panels as part of a little-noticed initiative by the Obama administration to curb K Street's influence in Washington, according to White House officials and lobbying experts. The new policy -- issued with little fanfare this fall by the White House ethics counsel -- may turn out to be the most far-reaching lobbying rule change so far from President Obama, who also has sought to restrict the ability of lobbyists to get jobs in his administration and to negotiate over stimulus contracts.”[Washington Post, 11/27/09]IN 2008, OBAMA FOR AMERICA REFUSED TO TAKE A DIME FROM FEDERAL LOBBYISTS OR SPECIAL-INTEREST PACS AND IS ALONE IN DOING IT NOWThe 2008 Obama Campaign Refused Contributions From PACs Or Lobbyists.?“Any penny-pinching?lobbyists?looking to save a few thousand dollars in the sure-to-break-records 2008 presidential race have the perfect candidate to throw their theoretical support behind: Sen. Barack?Obama?(D-Ill.). Not only has?Obama's?presidential exploratory committee said it will refuse all donations from political action committees, but it also is barring cash from registered federal?lobbyists.?Word has just started to spread among K Street's Democrats that when it comes to the candidate's coffers, they're off the hook…Dan Pfeiffer, a spokesman for?Obama's?exploratory committee, said the prohibition is not limited to Web donations. ‘The same criteria applies to all donations,’ he said, including old fashioned handwritten checks. Pfeiffer said he was not certain whether?Obama's?campaign also would turn away funds that?lobbyists?helped raise from their family members, friends and non-lobbyist?clients and colleagues or whether it applies to?lobbyists?who are registered at the state or local level.” [Roll Call, 1/24/07]?The 2012 Obama Campaign Does Not Take Contributions From PACs Or Federal Lobbyists. “The Obama campaign on Monday said that one million people have donated to the president's reelection campaign. A ticker on the Obama campaign website showed the campaign moving past the one million mark…Obama for America Press Secretary Ben LaBolt stressed that the campaign ‘rejects donations from special interest PACs and Washington lobbyists’ in a statement to CBS News. ‘Instead, we rely on contributions from Americans across the country,’ he said.” [CBS News, 10/17/11]Talking Points Memo: Romney Was Required To Disclose Bundlers Who Were Lobbyists, “People Whose Stated Jobs Is To Secure Favorable Treatment From The Federal Government.”?“There’s an added layer of irony. Romney is required by the FEC to release the names of bundlers who are also registered lobbyists — i.e. people whose stated job is to secure favorable treatment from the federal government. Many of them work in industries where Romney could give their clients a boost: Bundler Van Hipp works in military contracting, for example, and bundler Patrick Durkin lobbies for banks.” [Talking Points Memo,?7/16/12]OBAMA FOR AMERICA IS ALONE IN RELEASING A LIST OF BUNDLERS IN 2012President Obama Is The Only 2012 Candidate To Have Disclosed His Bundlers. “President Barack Obama discloses his best fund-raisers. The leading Republican 2012 presidential contenders refuse to reveal the names of their major fund-raisers, even though the last two GOP White House nominees — John McCain in 2008 and George Bush in 2004 — released the names of their “bundlers.” Obama will take some heat as the media and other groups — nonpartisan and partisan — put his bundlers under a microscope. The other candidates are keeping secret their bundlers. Why the need to disclose? Because to know the whole story when it comes to raising political cash — you have to know the names of the bundlers.” [Chicago Sun-Times, 7/22/11]The Obama Administration Ended Fast And Furious And Complied With Congressional InvestigationsTHE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION ENDED THE TACTICS USED IN OPERATION FAST AND FURIOUS AND LAUNCHED AN INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATIONAttorney General Holder Ordered An Inspector General Investigation To Determine The Facts About The ATF’s Operation Fast & Furious. “Fast and Furious was a highly secret undercover program begun with great ambition. The border was out of control, and the new Obama administration wanted to stop U.S. guns from crossing into Mexico and arming drug cartels. The Justice Department, which oversees the ATF, was pushing for agents to stop arresting small-time gun smugglers and concentrate instead on the big-name cartels. Today, the program is the subject of two investigations into why it was approved, why no one put a speedy end to it, and who among top ATF and Justice Department officials should be held responsible. No one in hindsight believes it was a good idea. ‘This is not a technique that should ever be used,’ said Atty. Gen. Eric H. Holder Jr., who ordered an inspector general investigation into Fast and Furious.” [Los Angeles Times, 8/11/11]Department Of Justice Inspector General Report: Attorney General Holder Did Not Authorize ATF Investigative Tactics That Allowed Illegally Purchased Weapons To Go To Mexico.? “In Fast and Furious, ATF agents allowed firearms to ‘walk,’ which meant ending surveillance on weapons suspected to be en route to Mexican drug cartels. … The report largely spared Holder from personal blame, saying he did not authorize the tactics used and did not know about allegations that guns had ‘walked’ until after the DOJ broadly denied that tactic was used in a February letter to Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa).” [Roll Call, 9/20/12]Department Of Justice Inspector General Report: Attorney General Holder Changed Justice Department Policy To Require The Interdiction Of Weapons In The U.S. Whenever Legally Possible, And Explicitly Prohibited The Tactics Used In Fast & Furious. “As a result, Attorney General Holder changed Department policy to require Department law enforcement agencies to interdict firearms in the United States where there was lawful authority to do so. In addition, at Holder’s direction, on March 9, 2011, Deputy Attorney General (DAG) Cole issued a directive to Southwest Border U.S. Attorneys stating that tactics allowing firearms to cross the border violated Department policy and would not be tolerated, including ‘controlled deliveries’ that were coordinated with Mexican law enforcement.” [U.S. Department of Justice, Office of the Inspector General, Review of ATF’s Operation Fast & Furious, p.421, 9/19/12]THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION PUT NEW LEADERSHIP IN PLACE AT THE ATF AND HELD DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE OFFICIALS ACCOUNTABLEAttorney General Holder Removed The Acting Director Of The Bureau Of Alcohol, Tobacco And Firearms From His Position As A Result Of Operation Fast And Furious; The U.S. Attorney For Arizona Stepped Down. ??“The Obama administration on Tuesday removed or reassigned the top officials involved in a widely criticized U.S. operation to trace the flow of illegal guns into Mexico. … The acting director of ATF, Kenneth Melson, has been reassigned to a Justice Department policy office. And Dennis Burke, the U.S. attorney in Arizona who approved the ‘Fast and Furious’ operation, resigned Tuesday.? A senior Justice Department official said Attorney General Eric Holder had lost confidence in them and that ATF needed ‘a fresh start.’ Melson has been under fire and has admitted mistakes in the sting operation meant to try to crack down on the flow of weapons to violent drug gangs. ?Burke is an experienced federal prosecutor.” [MSNBC, 8/30/11]An Inspector General’s Report On Operation Fast & Furious Referred More Than A Dozen Justice Department Employees For Possible Disciplinary Action. “In the 471-page report, Inspector General Michael Horowitz referred more than a dozen people for possible department disciplinary action for their roles in Operation Fast and Furious and a separate, earlier probe known as Wide Receiver, undertaken during the George W. Bush administration. A former acting deputy attorney general and the head of the criminal division were criticized for actions and omissions related to operations subsequent to and preceding Fast and Furious.” [Associated Press, 9/19/12]THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION WORKED TO COMPLY WITH A CONGRESSIONAL INVESTIGATION -- A “SHAMEFUL EXERCISE IN POLITICAL GAMESMANSHIP” THAT TURNED UP NOTHINGAttorney General Holder Testified Before Congress Nine Times To Discuss Fast And Furious. “The week's events mark a number of firsts in the Obama administration and could mark a first for the United States. By the numbers, here's a look at the facts underlying the Fast and Furious gun-walking operation and the standoff it has caused between Republicans in Congress and the Obama administration... 9 - Times Attorney General Eric Holder has testified before Congress during the 14-month investigation.” [CNN, 6/22/12]The Department Of Justice Released 7,600 Pages Of Documents To Congress In The Fast & Furious Investigation. “The administration has already turned over to Congress some 7,600 documents dealing with ‘Fast and Furious’ – an operation in which federal agents based in Arizona lost track of guns they had allowed criminals to obtain in an attempt to trace them back to gang leaders.” [Christian Science Monitor, 6/21/12]Washington Post Editorial: Rep. Darrell Issa “Has Lurched From One Conspiracy Theory To Another In Search Of A Bigger, Underlying Scandal.”? “The dispute centers on material developed after the Justice Department submitted a letter to Congress, since withdrawn as inaccurate, denying the existence of an operation to let guns ‘walk’ from their points of purchase in the United States to Mexican drug cartels. Two of the 2,500 guns turned up at the scene of a U.S. Border Patrol agent’s murder. This is a legitimate subject for congressional inquiry, even if Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), who chairs the oversight panel, has lurched from one conspiracy theory to another in search of a bigger, underlying scandal.”? [Editorial: Washington Post, 6/30/12]New York Times Editorial: The Vote To Hold Attorney General Holder In Contempt “Was A Shameful Exercise In Political Gamesmanship” And A Distraction From Real Issues.? “There is little chance that Mr. Holder will be prosecuted for criminal contempt, but a second House vote authorized Mr. Issa’s committee to pursue a civil court action against him — energy and effort much better spent developing a workable plan to stem the flood of American guns to Mexican drug cartels that gave rise to the disputed Fast and Furious Operation. This was a shameful exercise in political gamesmanship. House Republicans and the gun lobby, in making Mr. Holder the first sitting cabinet member in history to be held in contempt, came out looking a lot worse than their target.” [Editorial: New York Times, 6/30/12]U.S. House Oversight Committee Chairman Issa Said That He Has Seen No Evidence That The White House Was Involved In Any Sort Of Effort To Conceal Information From Congress In Operation Fast And Furious. ?“On ‘Fox News Sunday,’ a clip of Mr. Boehner’s statement was played and Mr. Issa was asked in an interview whether his committee had evidence that White House officials had knowingly misled Congress about the case. ‘No, we don’t,’ Mr. Issa said.” [New York Times, 6/25/12]Authors Of Stories Containing Classified Information Refute Claims That The Obama Administration Leaked InformationTHE AUTHORS OF ARTICLES IN QUESTION HAVE REFUTED CLAIMS THAT THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION PURPOSEFULLY LEAKED INFORMATION.REPORTERS BEHIND RECENT STORIES CONTAINING CLASSIFIED INFORMATION HAVE REJECTED THE CLAIM OF CONTROLLED LEAKS FROM THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION?David Sanger: “All That You Read About This Being Deliberate Leaks Out Of The White House, It Wasn’t My Experience.” In an interview, Bob Schieffer asked “Let me ask you all something. I mean, when you were reporting on this story, did either of you ever get the idea that some of these officials were disclosing some of these things?to you, to boost up the president`s reputation to make him appear tougher, that they were doing this and talking to you to counter this idea that he is a weak president and a weak leader?” David Sanger responded, “You know, in the case of Olympic games, I spent a year working the story from the bottom up, and then went to the administration and told them what I had. Then they had to make some decisions about how much they want to talk about it. All that you read about this being deliberate leaks out of the White House, it wasn`t my experience. Maybe it is in other cases.” [Face The Nation Transcript, CBS, 6/3/12]Scott Shane: “The Notion That the White House Promoted The Story Or Controlled Our Reporting And Writing Is Absurd.” “We interviewed many current and former officials, trying to speak with people who had actually met with the president on these subjects. The White House agreed to some interview requests and nixed others. We spoke to people who had been given permission to talk and to others who had not. In other words, it was a completely normal reporting process, and the notion that the White House prompted the story or controlled our reporting and writing is absurd.” [Huffington Post, 6/6/12]THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION HAS PROSECUTED TWICE AS MANY CASES UNDER THE ESPIONAGE ACT AS ALL OTHER ADMINISTRATIONS COMBINEDThe Obama Administration Has Prosecuted Twice As Many Cases Under The Espionage Act As All Other Administrations Combined. “The same Obama administration that is under fire from critics for allegedly leaking classified information has used a 1917 law to target suspected leakers in twice as many cases as all previous presidential administrations combined. Under Obama, the Justice Department has prosecuted six cases under the Espionage Act in recent years; federal prosecutors had used the law in three cases before Obama took office.” [CNN, 6/7/12]The Daily Beast: Equating The Obama Administration’s Record Level Of Leak Prosecutions With Hostility To Whistle-Blowers “Misstates The Facts.” “It is true the administration is setting records for the prosecution of those who leak classified national-security information, but equating this record with hostility to whistle-blowers misstates the facts. The difference between a leaker and a whistle-blower is important. Leaks of classified information can endanger American soldiers and intelligence officers and expose sensitive national-security programs to our enemies.” [The Daily Beast, 3/10/12]Republicans Continue Investigating Solyndra To Score Political PointsSOLYNDRA’S LOAN GUARANTEE WAS GRANTED BASED ON ITS MERITS AS PART OF A PROGRAM CREATED DURING THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION, AND IT WAS PRAISED AS AN INNOVATIVE BUSINESS BEFORE AND AFTER RECEIVING THE LOAN GUARANTEEROMNEY’S PREVIOUS CLAIMS OF CRONYISM HAVE BEEN RATED FALSE BY NUMEROUS INDEPENDENT FACT CHECKERSAssociated Press: “FACT CHECK: Romney Misses A Mark On Solyndra Claim.” [Associated Press, 6/1/12]Politico: “Fact-Checkers Debunk Mitt Romney’s Solyndra Claim.” [Politico, 6/5/12]Associated Press: “There is No Proof” That The Inspector General Testified That Solyndra’s Funding Was Granted Because Of Ties To Campaign Contributors. “There is no proof — and it appears unlikely — that Energy Department Inspector General Gregory Friedman was talking about Solyndra when he testified in March 2011 about stimulus contracts. Friedman said his office was investigating whether such contracts were steered to friends and family, presumably of government officials in charge of spending stimulus money. Romney cited a Newsweek article that referred to Friedman's testimony. But Friedman did not say that such claims had been proved, and there is no evidence he was including Solyndra in his comments.” [Associated Press, 6/1/12]ABC News’ Jake Tapper: The Claim That The Inspector General Said That Friends And Family Benefited With Stimulus Funds “Is Simply False.” “Neither example has anything to do with the claim Romney and his campaign are making, that the inspector general has testified the contracts have been steered to friends and family. There are certainly donors who benefited from the program, and big donors – “bundlers” – who benefited from the program. But friends and family benefiting is a charge that has yet to be proven – and it has certainly never been alleged by the Inspector General. The charge is simply false.” [Jake Tapper, ABC News, 6/1/12]AFTER MORE THAN A YEAR OF COSTLY INVESTIGATIONS, HOUSE REPUBLICANS HAVE “TURNED UP NO EVIDENCE OF WRONGDOING”The Hill: “Despite Allegations About Political Donors Influencing Loan Decisions, The Lengthy House GOP Probe Of Solyndra Did Not Show Political Favoritism.” “Defenders of the loan guarantees say that while Solyndra's demise was unfortunate, the overall program has succeeded in backing companies that have created jobs and helped expand renewable component manufacturing and green power generation. Obama administration officials have pointed to the White House-commissioned outside review released in February that provided a lower estimate of taxpayer risk than an earlier forecast. Despite allegations about political donors influencing loan decisions, the lengthy House GOP probe of Solyndra did not show political favoritism.” [The Hill, “E2 Wire” Blog, 5/29/12]Bloomberg’s Joshua Green: “House Republicans Have Sent 32 Congressional Letters, Compelled 187,000 Pages Of Administration Documents, 72,000 Pages Of Documents From Solyndra Investors, 9 Committee Staff Briefings, 5 Committee Hearings, And A Sworn Committee Interview With The Obama Bundler Who Raised Money From People Involved In The Company.” [Joshua Green, Bloomberg Businessweek, 2/17/12]?Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) Said Republicans Will Stop Looking Into Solyndra “On Election Day.” “In some respects, Republicans have accomplished their mission. Even if no one goes to jail, they've turned Solyndra into a four-letter word, vilified the Nobel laureate Chu and left a popular DOE program in shambles. They also make no bones about how they've turned Solyndra into a campaign issue. ‘Ultimately, we'll stop it on Election Day, hopefully,’ Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) told?Environment & Energy Daily.? ‘And bringing attention to these things helps the voters and citizens of the country make the kind of decision that I hope helps them as they evaluate who they are going to vote for in November.’" [Politico, 3/27/12]SOLYNDRA RECEIVED FUNDING THROUGH A DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY PROGRAM CREATED UNDER THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION AND HAD THE SUPPORT OF A MAJORITY OF REPUBLICANSTampa Bay Times PolitiFact: President Bush Signed Legislation That Established The Department Of Energy’s Loan Guarantee Program And Touted The Program On His Way Out Of Office. “Plouffe said that the loan guarantee program that awarded half a billion dollars in guarantees to Solyndra "was supported by President Bush." The program was created on Bush's watch by a law he signed and promoted. The program grew under the Obama administration, which ultimately awarded Solyndra's loan guarantee under a new section of the law created by the stimulus. The Bush administration, though, promoted the loan guarantee program, and Bush himself touted it on his way out of office. There's also evidence his administration specifically prioritized Solyndra's project. We find Plouffe's statement Mostly True.” [Tampa Bay Times, PolitiFact, 11/17/11]The Energy Policy Act Of 2005 Passed With Bipartisan Support In Both The House And Senate. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 passed the House by a vote of 275-156 with 200 Republicans supporting the bill. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 passed the Senate by a vote of 74-26 with 49 Republicans supporting the bill. [Clerk of the House of Representatives, Final Vote Results for Roll Call 445, 7/28/05; Secretary of the Senate, Vote Date 7/29/05]Solyndra Applied For A Loan Guarantee In 2006 And In 2007 Was Invited By The Bush Administration’s Department Of Energy To Submit A Full Application. According to a Department of Energy timeline of the Solyndra Loan Guarantee application: “Dec. 28, 2006: Solyndra submits pre-application, seeking funding for its Fab 1 manufacturing facility. April – June 2007: DOE conducts financial and technical review of Solyndra pre-application. Oct. 4, 2007: DOE invites Solyndra, and 15 other applicants, to submit full applications.” [Department of Energy, accessed 5/30/12]SOLYNDRA WAS PRAISED AS A SUCCESSFUL AND INNOVATIVE COMPANY BOTH BEFORE AND AFTER RECEIVING THE ENERGY DEPARTMENT LOAN GUARANTEEMiami Herald PolitiFact: “As Recently As 2010, The Company Was Hailed As A Silicon Valley Superstar.” “As recently as 2010, the company was hailed as a Silicon Valley superstar, ranked a top clean-tech company by the Wall Street Journal and one of the "World's 50 Most Innovative Companies" by a Massachusetts Institute of Technology magazine.”[Miami Herald, PolitiFact, 11/15/11]March 2010: The Wall Street Journal Ranked Solyndra Fifth In Its List Of The Top 50 Venture-Backed Companies. The Wall Street Journal ranked Solyndra 5th on its list of the Top 50 Venture-Backed Companies, stating that “The rankings were calculated based on how each company scored in the following components: the track record of success for the venture-capital investors who sit on the company's board (Board Ranking); the amount of capital raised by the company over the last three years, in comparison to its peers (Total Equity Ranking); the track record of success for the company's founders and chief executive (Executive Ranking); and the recent growth in the value of the company (Valuation Ranking). As a last component, Dow Jones venture-capital reporters and editors also reviewed and ranked the companies. Overall rank is based on a weighted combination of all five components.” [Wall Street Journal, 3/9/10]February 2010: A MIT Magazine Named Solyndra One Of The World’s 50 Most Innovative Companies. Solyndra was included as one of the 2010 TR50, described in a press release by Technology Review Inc., an independent media company owned by MIT: “Technology Review today announced the 2010 TR50, the first annual list of the 50 most innovative companies in the world. Spanning energy, computing, the Web, biomedicine, and materials, each company on the list has been evaluated based on its business model, strategies for deploying and scaling up its technologies, and the likelihood of success. Each company in the 2010 TR50 has excelled not only at inventing technology but also at using it to transform how we live and work.” [Technology Review Press Release via Reuters, 2/23/10]CONTRASTPresident Obama Has A Record Of Transparency, But Romney Would Not Release His BundlersIN 2008, OBAMA FOR AMERICA REFUSED TO TAKE A DIME FROM FEDERAL LOBBYISTS OR SPECIAL-INTEREST PACS AND IS ALONE IN DOING IT NOWThe 2008 Obama Campaign Refused Contributions From PACs Or Lobbyists.?“Any penny-pinching?lobbyists?looking to save a few thousand dollars in the sure-to-break-records 2008 presidential race have the perfect candidate to throw their theoretical support behind: Sen. Barack?Obama?(D-Ill.). Not only has?Obama's?presidential exploratory committee said it will refuse all donations from political action committees, but it also is barring cash from registered federal?lobbyists.?Word has just started to spread among K Street's Democrats that when it comes to the candidate's coffers, they're off the hook…Dan Pfeiffer, a spokesman for?Obama's?exploratory committee, said the prohibition is not limited to Web donations. ‘The same criteria applies to all donations,’ he said, including old fashioned handwritten checks. Pfeiffer said he was not certain whether?Obama's?campaign also would turn away funds that?lobbyists?helped raise from their family members, friends and non-lobbyist?clients and colleagues or whether it applies to?lobbyists?who are registered at the state or local level.” [Roll Call, 1/24/07]?The 2012 Obama Campaign Does Not Take Contributions From PACs Or Federal Lobbyists. “The Obama campaign on Monday said that one million people have donated to the president's reelection campaign. A ticker on the Obama campaign website showed the campaign moving past the one million mark…Obama for America Press Secretary Ben LaBolt stressed that the campaign ‘rejects donations from special interest PACs and Washington lobbyists’ in a statement to CBS News. ‘Instead, we rely on contributions from Americans across the country,’ he said.” [CBS News, 10/17/11]OBAMA FOR AMERICA IS ALONE IN RELEASING A LIST OF BUNDLERS IN 2012President Obama Is The Only 2012 Candidate To Have Disclosed His Bundlers. “President Barack Obama discloses his best fund-raisers. The leading Republican 2012 presidential contenders refuse to reveal the names of their major fund-raisers, even though the last two GOP White House nominees — John McCain in 2008 and George Bush in 2004 — released the names of their “bundlers.” Obama will take some heat as the media and other groups — nonpartisan and partisan — put his bundlers under a microscope. The other candidates are keeping secret their bundlers. Why the need to disclose? Because to know the whole story when it comes to raising political cash — you have to know the names of the bundlers.” [Chicago Sun-Times, 7/22/11]ROMNEY REFUSES TO LIST ALL OF THE NAMES OF HIS BUNDLERS – PREVENTING VOTERS FROM KNOWING WHO WIELDS INFLUENCE INSIDE HIS CAMPAIGNRomney “Is The First Winning Candidate Of Either Party In More Than A Decade” Not To Disclose His Bundlers. “In his campaign, Romney has limited the release of documents and information that in the past often have become part of the public record.? He is the first winning candidate of either party in more than a decade to refuse to give the public a list of the people who tap their business and social networks to raise tens of thousands of dollars for him. In 2008, Obama and McCain both released lists of bundlers. Bush released his in 2000 and 2004.” [Associated Press, 6/11/12]Romney Refused To Identify “Bundlers” Which “PreventsVoters From Knowing Who Wields Influence Inside The GOP Frontrunner's Campaign And How Their Interests Might Benefit If He Is Elected.” “Unlike President Barack Obama, Romney's campaign will not identify his major fundraisers, and federal law doesn't require him to. The AP identified several of Romney's ‘bundlers’ through interviews, finance records, event invitations and other publicity about campaign events. The lack of transparency by the Romney campaign prevents voters from knowing who wields influence inside the GOP frontrunner's campaign and how their interests might benefit if he is elected.” [Associated Press, 3/27/12]Romney’s Secrecy On Bundlers “Is Particularly Egregious Given That He Understood The Value Of Transparency Sufficiently To Disclose His Bundlers In 2008.” “Yet this year, the Republican candidates have so far declined to publish the same type of list. Mitt Romney’s secrecy is particularly egregious, given that he understood the value of transparency sufficiently to disclose his bundlers in 2008. This cycle he has raised more than $18 million, four times the amount of any of his competitors. Indeed, he brags of having vacuumed up more than $10 million in a single day. How did he do this? By tapping bundlers, of course. But he won’t tell us who they are.” [Editorial, Washington Post, 7/23/11]ATTACKRomney’s Lack of TransparencyROMNEY DEVELOPED A RECORD FOR LACKING TRANSPARENCYWashington Post Editorial: “Mitt Romney’s Contemptuous Attitude Toward The Importance Of Public Disclosure Is Increasingly Troubling … The Presumptive Republican Is Setting A New, Low Bar For Transparency.” “Mitt Romney’s contemptuous attitude toward the importance of public disclosure is increasingly troubling. Whether it involves the details of his personal finances or the identity of his big fundraisers, the presumptive Republican is setting a new, low bar for transparency — one that does not augur well for how the Romney White House would conduct itself if he were elected.” [Editorial, Washington Post, 4/23/12]Romney “Has Made A Keep-It-Under-Wraps Approach A Hallmark Of His Campaign” And Has “Often Broken Precedent Set By Presidential Candidates Of Both Parties.” “But Romney, whose views have been shaped both by his years in politics and his nearly three decades in private business, has made a keep-it-under-wraps approach a hallmark of his campaign. He’s often broken precedent set by presidential candidates of both parties.? ‘He is reluctant to disclose information that is standard for disclosure and has become the norm,’ said Angela Canterbury, policy director for the Project on Government Oversight. And she and others say there’s no reason to think that style would change if Romney becomes president.” [Associated Press, 6/11/12] Policy Director For Project On Government Oversight Angela Canterbury: Romney “Is Reluctant To Disclose Information That Is Standard For Disclosure And Has Become The Norm.” “‘He is reluctant to disclose information that is standard for disclosure and has become the norm,’ said Angela Canterbury, policy director for the Project on Government Oversight. And she and others say there’s no reason to think that style would change if Romney becomes president.” [Associated Press, 6/11/12]Associated Press: “Romney Has Limited The Release Of Documents And Information That In The Past Often Have Become Part Of The Public Record.” [Associated Press, 6/11/12]IN MASSACHUSETTS, ROMNEY SPENT TAXPAYER MONEY TO HIDE HIS PRACTICES FROM THE PUBLIC AND “OPPOSITION RESEARCH”Romney Spent Nearly $100,000 In Taxpayer Money To Replace Computers In The Massachusetts’ Governor’s Office As “Part Of An Unprecedented Effort To Keep His Records Secret.” “Mitt Romney spent nearly $100,000 in state funds to replace computers in his office at the end of his term as governor of Massachusetts in 2007 as part of an unprecedented effort to keep his records secret, Reuters has learned.” [Reuters, 12/5/11]When Governor Romney Left Office All Administration Computers Where Replaced, The Server Was Taken Out Of Service, All Files Were Removed From It, And It Was Replaced. Mark Reilly, Deval Patrick’s chief legal counsel: “‘Before the current administration took office, the computers used during that time period were replaced and the server used during that time period was taken out of service, all files were removed from it, and it was also replaced.’” [Boston Globe, 11/17/11]Romney Communications Director Gail Gitcho: “People Probably Didn’t Want Their Hard Drives Subject To An Opposition Research Dig.” “Why did so many aides buy their hard drives?? ‘You know a lot of people probably didn’t want their hard drives subject to an opposition research dig, which is what we are seeing happen now,’ Gitcho said. ‘I do know this has been a long standing practice and everything has been done with complete compliance with the law.’? When asked about the hard drives on the campaign trail, Romney Friday brushed it off as typical presidential season politics.” [CNN, 11/18/11]ROMNEY REFUSES TO LIST ALL OF THE NAMES OF HIS BUNDLERS – PREVENTING VOTERS FROM KNOWING WHO WIELDS INFLUENCE INSIDE HIS CAMPAIGNRomney “Is The First Winning Candidate Of Either Party In More Than A Decade” Not To Disclose His Bundlers. “In his campaign, Romney has limited the release of documents and information that in the past often have become part of the public record.? He is the first winning candidate of either party in more than a decade to refuse to give the public a list of the people who tap their business and social networks to raise tens of thousands of dollars for him. In 2008, Obama and McCain both released lists of bundlers. Bush released his in 2000 and 2004.” [Associated Press, 6/11/12]Romney Refused To Identify “Bundlers” Which “PreventsVoters From Knowing Who Wields Influence Inside The GOP Frontrunner's Campaign And How Their Interests Might Benefit If He Is Elected.” “Unlike President Barack Obama, Romney's campaign will not identify his major fundraisers, and federal law doesn't require him to. The AP identified several of Romney's ‘bundlers’ through interviews, finance records, event invitations and other publicity about campaign events. The lack of transparency by the Romney campaign prevents voters from knowing who wields influence inside the GOP frontrunner's campaign and how their interests might benefit if he is elected.” [Associated Press, 3/27/12]Washington Post Editorial: Romney’s Refusal To Release The Names Of His Bundlers “Represents A Striking And Disturbing Departure From The Past Practice Of Presidential Candidates Of Both Parties.”?“As Mitt Romney edges closer to the Republican presidential nomination, the imperative grows for the former Massachusetts governor to release his income tax returns and disclose the identities of the fundraising bundlers who have brought in millions for his campaign. Mr. Romney’s determined lack of transparency on these two fronts — the candidate and his campaign have said he has no plans to release either — represents a striking and disturbing departure from the past practice of presidential candidates of both parties.” [Editorial, Washington Post, 1/11/12]ROMNEY SAID HE DOESN’T WANT TO RELEASE ADDITIONAL TAX RETURNS DUE TO OPPOSITION RESEARCHERSRomney Said Of Not Releasing More Tax Returns: “We Just Don't Want To Give The DNC More Things For Them To Pick At, Distort In The Way They Have Already.” LAUER: “So you don't think you've raised more questions than you've answered in releasing the amount of information you have to date?”MITT ROMNEY: “We've laid out all that’s required by law and then some, the same as John McCain. And we just don't want to give the DNC more things for them to pick at, distort in the way they have already.” [Today Show, MSNBC, 7/27/12]ROMNEY GAVE 23 YEARS’ WORTH OF TAX RETURNS TO JOHN MCCAIN TO BE VETTED FOR THE VICE PRESIDENTIAL NOMINATION…?Romney Provided The McCain Campaign With 23 Years Of Tax Forms To Vet Him As A Possible VP – Romney Added “The IRS Doesn’t Require You To Keep That Many Years, But I’m A Bit Of Pack Rat So I Had Them All.”?“Romney was McCain's fiercest rival for the GOP presidential nomination. Romney would have been the first Mormon to carry a major party's standard in a presidential election. Romney did give some glimpses into the McCain veep vetting process. ‘One receives a very substantial questionnaire, and one is asked for tax forms from 1985 to the present,’ Romney said. ‘That's 23 years of tax forms. The IRS doesn't require you to keep that many years, but I'm a bit of pack rat so I had them all.’” [Arizona Republic, 9/3/08]1967: GEORGE ROMNEY DISCLOSED 12 YEARS OF TAX RETURNS WHEN RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT AND SAID RELEASING ONLY ONE YEAR OF TAX RETURNS WOULD “BE A FLUKE, DONE FOR SHOW”George Romney Was Believed To Be The First Presidential Candidate To Make His Income Tax Returns Public. [UPI, in the St. Joseph Gazette, 11/27/67]1967: George Romney Released 12 Years Of Tax Returns. “Republican president contender George W. Romney, in a move believed without precedent in American politics, Saturday mad public his income tax returns for the last 12 years.” [UPI, in the St. Joseph Gazette, 11/27/67]George Romney Balked At Releasing Just A Single Year Of Tax Returns Because “One Year Could Be A Fluke, Perhaps Done For Show.” “George Harris, Looksenior editor, said he had ‘badgered’ the governor for his latest income tax form but Romney had balked because ‘one year could be a fluke, perhaps done for show…’ ‘Stumped by this argument, I was not prepared for the move it eventually led him to make: He ordered up all the Form 1040’s that he and Mrs. Romney had filed over the last 12 years – including those profitable ones when he saved the American Motors Corporation from bankruptcy and became a millionaire on the company’s stock options.” [UPI in St. Joseph Gazette, 11/27/67]Ryan Gave Romney 10 Years Of Returns But Gave The American People Only 2RYAN PROVIDED TEN YEARS OF TAX RETURNS DURING VETTING FOR VICE PRESIDENTIAL NOMINATION …Daily Beast: “As Part Of Its Vetting, The Romney Campaign Required At Least Some Of The Candidates On The Short List—Including The Eventual Winner Of The GOP Veepstakes, Ryan—To Submit Fully 10 Years Of Tax Returns.” “As part of its vetting, the Romney campaign required at least some of the candidates on the short list—including the eventual winner of the GOP veepstakes, Ryan—to submit fully 10 years of tax returns, according to a knowledgeable source. The requirement was consistent with the past practices of both Republican and Democratic campaigns.? Indeed, in 2008, Mitt Romney turned over 23 years of taxes to John Mccain’s campaign when he was under consideration to be the Arizona senator’s running mate.” ?[Daily Beast, 9/13/12] Daily Beast Headline: “Romney Asked VP Shortlisters For Ten Years Of Tax Returns” [Daily Beast, 9/13/12]… YET RELEASED JUST TWO YEARS PUBLICLYIn CBS 60 Minutes Interview, Paul Ryan “Said He Planned To Release Two Years Of His Tax Records To The Public, As Romney Has Pledged To Do.” “Ryan also said he planned to release two years of his tax records to the public, as Romney has pledged to do. Democrats and even some Republicans have called on Romney to release more years of his returns.? ‘It was a very exhaustive vetting process,’ Ryan said when asked about the tax issue in a joint interview with Romney on the CBS program ‘60 Minutes’ that aired last night. ‘There were several years’ of returns that he turned over, he said.? ‘But I’m going to release the—the same amount of years that Governor Romney has’ for public review, he added.” [Bloomberg, 8/13/12]Paul And Janna Ryan Paid Effective Tax Rate Of 20% In 2011. “Paul Ryan and his wife, Janna, paid an effective tax rate of 15.9% in 2010 and 20% in 2011, according to tax returns provided by the Romney-Ryan campaign to the Journal Sentinel on Friday.” [Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 8/17/12]Romney Won’t Give Policy Details To The American People, But Shares Them With His DonorsROMNEY HAS GIVEN HIS DONORS DETAILS ON HIS POLICY PLANS HE HAS REFUSED TO GIVE TO THE PUBLICWashington Post: “Romney Has A History Of Delivering Different Messages To His Donors When Reporters Are Not Present To Hear Them.” [Washington Post, 7/28/12]Politico: “[Romney] Has Had Issues Over Things He's Said Behind Closed Doors At Fundraisers Before, In Contrast To What He Has Said On The Stump Or In Interviews.” [Politico, 10/3/12]Mother Jones: “During A Private Fundraiser” Romney “Told A Small Group Of Wealthy Contributors” That The Half Of America Who Support President Obama Are Free-Loaders. “During a private fundraiser earlier this year, Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney told a small group of wealthy contributors what he truly thinks of all the voters who support President Barack Obama. He dismissed these Americans as freeloaders who pay no taxes, who don't assume responsibility for their lives, and who think government should take care of them.” [Mother Jones, 9/17/12]Romney: “There Are 47% Of The People Who Will Vote For The President No Matter What… Who Are Dependent Upon Government, Who Believe That-- That They Are Victims, Who Believe That Government Has A Responsibility To Care For Them… These Are People Who Pay No Income Tax.? 47% Of Americans Pay No Income Taxes…? So My Job Is Not To Worry About Those People.? I'll Never Convince Them That They Should Take Personal Responsibility And Care For For Their Lives.” [Romney Fundraiser, Boca Raton, FL, 5/17/12]Associated Press: “Romney Told Donors In A Newly Released Video Clip That Palestinians ‘Have No Interest’ In Peace With Israel And Suggested That Efforts At Mideast Peace Under His Administration Would Languish.” [Associated Press, 9/18/12]Salon: Romney’s Most Specific Comments On The Supreme Court’s Immigration Ruling Came In A Closed-Door Fundraiser, Which Is “A Bit Of A Pattern” For Romney Since He “Tends To Be Evasive About Not Just Immigration, But Virtually Every Policy Area — Until He Gets Into A Private Room With Donors.” “It’s also worth noting that Romney’s most specific comments came in a closed-door fundraiser. There’s a bit of a pattern here. Romney tends to be evasive about not just immigration, but virtually every policy area — until he gets into a private room with donors. While he hasn’t specified in public how he’d trim the federal government, at a private fundraiser in Florida in April, Romney detailed how he would cut the Departments of Education and Housing and Urban Development.” [Salon, 6/26/12]Romney, Speaking To “High-Dollar Donors” At A Private Estate Offered The First Details Of Deductions He Would Eliminate Or Limit In His Tax Plan And Departments He Was Planning To Gut. “Mitt Romney, speaking at a private fundraising event on Sunday, offered the first details of deductions he would eliminate or limit in order to offset the income tax cut he has proposed for all taxpayers. Mr. Romney, the presumptive Republican nominee for president, said he would eliminate or limit for high-earners the mortgage interest deduction for second homes, and likely would do the same for the state income tax deduction and state property tax deduction. He also said he would look to the Department of Education and the Department of Housing and Urban Development for budget cuts. Mr. Romney discussed his plans while speaking to high-dollar donors at a private estate. During the backyard event, which could be heard by reporters outside on a public sidewalk, Mr. Romney offered policy specifics he has yet to unveil on the campaign trail.” [Wall Street Journal, 4/15/12]BROKEN PROMISESPRO-POTUSTopline Promises KeptPRESIDENT OBAMA PROMISED ACCESSIBLE AND AFFORDABLE HEALTH CARE AND SIGNED THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT INTO LAWOn March 23, 2010, President Obama Signed The Affordable Care Act Into Law, Ensuring Health Care Access and Affordability For Millions Of Americans. “We are a nation that faces its challenges and accepts its responsibilities.? We are a nation that does what is hard.? What is necessary.? What is right.? Here, in this country, we shape our own destiny.? That is what we do.? That is who we are.? That is what makes us the United States of America.?And we have now just enshrined, as soon as I sign this bill, the core principle that everybody should have some basic security when it comes to their health care.” – [Remarks by the President at the signing of the Affordable Care Act, 03/23/10]PRESIDENT OBAMA PROMISED TO INVEST IN THE AMERICAN AUTO INDUSTRY, AND HIS LEADERSHIP SAVED THE AUTO INDUSTRY, SAVING OVER A MILLION JOBSCenter For Automotive Research: The Auto Industry Rescue Saved Over 1.1 Million Jobs In 2009. According to a report on the? difference between orderly bankruptcy proceedings assisted by government-provided debtor-in-possession financing versus an uncontrolled bankruptcy for American automakers, the Center for Automotive Research estimates that emergency loans to American automakers saved 1.14 million jobs in 2009. [Center for Automotive Research Report, 11/7/10]PRESIDENT OBAMA SAID HIS ADMINISTRATION WOULD REFOCUS ON OSAMA BIN LADEN AND ENDED HIS ABILITY TO ATTACK THIS NATION EVER AGAINOn May 1, 2011, President Obama Announced An Operation Into Pakistan Had Successfully Killed Osama Bin Laden. “In a late-night appearance in the East Room of the White House, Mr. Obama declared that “justice has been done” as he disclosed that American military and?C.I.A.?operatives had finally cornered Bin Laden, the leader of?Al Qaeda, who had eluded them for nearly a decade. “ [NYT, 05/01/11]PRESIDENT OBAMA SAID HE WOULD END THE WAR IN IRAQ RESPONSIBLY, AND HE DIDPresident Obama Declared An End To Combat Operations In Iraq In August 2010. “President Barack Obama has hailed the end of US combat operations in Iraq, saying his country has paid ‘a huge price’ to ‘put Iraq's future in its people's hands.’” [BBC News, 09/01/10]On December 18, 2011, The Last Convoy Of US Troops Crossed The Border Out Of Iraq, Officially Ending The War In Iraq. “The last convoy of American troops drove into Kuwait on Sunday morning, punctuating the end of the nearly nine-year war in?Iraq.” [New York Times, 12/18/11]PRESIDENT OBAMA SAID HE WOULD CUT TAXES FOR THE MIDDLE CLASS, AND HE CUT TAXES MULTIPLE TIMES FOR MIDDLE CLASS FAMILIESA Typical Family Making $50,000 A Year Has Seen Their Taxes Cut By $3,600 Over The Last Four Years Due To The Making Work Pay Tax Credit And The Payroll Tax Cut. “A typical family making $50,000 a year has seen their taxes cut by $3,600 over the last four years, $800 in each of 2009 and 2010 due to the Making Work Pay tax credit and $1,000 in each of 2011 and 2012 due to the payroll tax cut.” [White House National Economic Council, July 2012]President Obama Has Signed 18 Tax Cuts To Support Small Business Growth. “To date, the President has supported 18 direct tax breaks that bolster small business growth. In September 2010, he signed the Small Business Jobs Act, which included eight new small business tax cuts that, among other forms of tax relief, extended accelerated bonus depreciation for two million businesses, making investment and growth more affordable; made investments in one million small firms eligible for zero capital gains taxes; and allowed two million self-employed Americans to deduct their health insurance costs when calculating their self-employment taxes.” [White House National Economic Council, May 2012]PRESIDENT OBAMA SAID WE’D NEVER BAIL OUT THE BANKS AGAIN, AND NOT ONLY DID HE PASS WALL STREET REFORM THAT ENDED “TO BIG TO FAIL,” BUT HE WENT AND GOT BACK EVERY TAXPAYER DOLLAR THE BANKS HAD BEEN GIVENWall Street Reform Expressly Prohibits Taxpayer Bailouts For Financial Institutions And Provides For The Orderly Liquidation Of Failing Financial Firms Funded By Bank Assets And Assessments. “The Act provides for the orderly liquidation of systemically important, failing financial companies…The Act expressly prohibits taxpayer bailouts by: Providing that shareholders receive no payments until all other claims are paid (including claims of the FDIC and other governmental entities). Requiring unsecured creditors to bear losses in accordance with priority of claims provisions. Requiring the FDIC to ensure that management and board members responsible for failure are removed. If receivership assets are insufficient to cover the costs of orderly liquidation, requiring any funds expended in the liquidation of any financial company to be recovered through assessments as described in the Act.” [Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Staff Summary Of Wall Street Reform, 9/10/10]Non-AIG Bank Bailouts – Called “Bank Programs” By Treasury – Have Made A $21 Billion Profit For Taxpayers. [Treasury TARP Tracker, Accessed 9/8/12]September 2012: Treasury And The Federal Reserve’s Combined $182 Billion Commitment Made To Stabilize AIG During The Financial Crisis Was Fully Recovered. “Today, the U.S. Department of the Treasury announced that it has agreed to sell 553,846,153 shares of its American International Group, Inc. (AIG) common stock at $32.50 per share in an underwritten public offering. The aggregate proceeds to Treasury from the common stock offering are expected to be approximately $18.0 billion. As part of Treasury’s offering today, AIG agreed to purchase 153,846,153 shares at the public offering price of $32.50 per share – representing approximately $5.0 billion of Treasury’s expected proceeds from the sale.? Treasury has granted the underwriters a 30-day over-allotment option to purchase up to an additional 83,076,922 shares of AIG common stock. Giving effect to today’s offering, Treasury and the Federal Reserve’s combined $182 billion commitment made to stabilize AIG during the financial crisis is now fully recovered.” [Treasury Press Release, 9/10/12]PRESIDENT OBAMA REPEALED THE DISCRIMINATORY DON’T ASK, DON’T TELL POLICYPresident Obama Signed The Repeal Of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” “The military’s longstanding ban on service by gays and lesbians came to a historic and symbolic end on Wednesday, as President Obama signed legislation repealing ‘don’t ask, don’t tell,’ the contentious 17-year old Clinton-era law that sought to allow gays to serve under the terms of an uneasy compromise that required them to keep their sexuality a secret.” [New York Times, 12/22/10]President Obama Delivered On His Promise To Pass Health Care ReformPRESIDENT OBAMA PROMISED ACCESSIBLE AND AFFORDABLE HEALTH CARE AND SIGNED THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT INTO LAW10/07/08: Obama Promised Accessible and Affordable Health Care. “So one of the things that I have said from the start of this campaign is that we have a moral commitment as well as an economic imperative to do something about the health care crisis that so many families are facing. So here's what I would do. If you've got health care already, and probably the majority of you do, then you can keep your plan if you are satisfied with it. You can keep your choice of doctor. We're going to work with your employer to lower the cost of your premiums by up to $2,500 a year. And we're going to do it by investing in prevention. We're going to do it by making sure that we use information technology so that medical records are actually on computers instead of you filling forms out in triplicate when you go to the hospital. That will reduce medical errors and reduce costs. If you don't have health insurance, you're going to be able to buy the same kind of insurance that Sen. McCain and I enjoy as federal employees. Because there's a huge pool, we can drop the costs. And nobody will be excluded for pre-existing conditions, which is a huge problem.” [Remarks in Town Hall Presidential Debate at Belmont University in Nashville, TN, 10/07/08]On March 23, 2010, President Obama Signed The Affordable Care Act Into Law, Ensuring Health Care Access and Affordability For Millions Of Americans. “We are a nation that faces its challenges and accepts its responsibilities.? We are a nation that does what is hard.? What is necessary.? What is right.? Here, in this country, we shape our own destiny.? That is what we do.? That is who we are.? That is what makes us the United States of America.?And we have now just enshrined, as soon as I sign this bill, the core principle that everybody should have some basic security when it comes to their health care.” – [Remarks by the President at the signing of the Affordable Care Act, 03/23/10]The Affordable Care Act Provides All Americans Access To Affordable Health Care Coverage. “In 2014, all Americans – regardless of their health status – will have access to affordable coverage either through their employer or through new competitive marketplaces called Exchanges, and insurers will be prohibited from charging more or denying coverage to anyone based on the state of their health.” [, 12/09/11]The Affordable Care Act Will Enable An Additional 30 Million People To Gain Insurance. “CBO and JCT now estimate that the ACA, in comparison with prior law before the enactment of the ACA, will reduce the number of nonelderly people without health insurance coverage by 14 million in 2014 and by 29 million or 30 million in the latter part of the coming decade.” [Congressional Budget Office, 7/24/12]President Obama Delivered On His Promise To Invest In The Auto IndustryPRESIDENT OBAMA PROMISED TO INVEST IN THE AMERICAN AUTO INDUSTRY, AND HIS LEADERSHIP SAVED THE AUTO INDUSTRY, SAVING OVER A MILLION JOBS6/16/08: Obama Said He Would Invest In The Auto Industry.?“We’re going to make sure that we invest in our infrastructure—our roads and our bridges. Build broadband lines that connect America. We’re going to make sure that every worker gets the training they need to function effectively in this new economy. We are going to reinvest in the auto industry here in the motor city because we are going to build the cars of the future right here—plug-in hybrids, right here in Detroit, right here in Michigan, right here in America.” [Detroit, MI,?6/16/08]Since Chrysler And GM Retooled In June 2009, The American Auto Industry Has Added Over 246,000 Jobs. ?According to Bureau of Labor Statistics Current Employment Statistics surveydata, motor vehicle and parts manufacturing and motor vehicle and parts retail trade sectors employed 2,252,100 Americans in June 2009. In September 2012, these sectors employed 2,498,400 Americans – an increase of 246,300 jobs. [Bureau Of Labor Statistics Current Employment Statistics Survey Database, Accessed 10/5/12]Center For Automotive Research: The Auto Industry Rescue Saved Over 1.1 Million Jobs In 2009. According to a report on the? difference between orderly bankruptcy proceedings assisted by government-provided debtor-in-possession financing versus an uncontrolled bankruptcy for American automakers, the Center for Automotive Research estimates that emergency loans to American automakers saved 1.14 million jobs in 2009. [Center for Automotive Research Report, 11/7/10]September 2012: U.S. Auto Sales Reached Their Highest Sales Rate In Four Years. “Autos flew off the lot at the highest sales rate in four years, adjusted for seasonal variations, according to the research firm Autodata. Over all, a total of 1.19 million cars, trucks and S.U.V.’s were sold in the United States during the month — a 13 percent increase from a year ago.” [New York Times, 10/3/12]January 2012: General Motors Regained The Title Of World’s Largest Automaker For 2011, Selling 9 Million Vehicles In 2011. “Less than two years after emerging from bankruptcy, General Motors Co. has regained the title of the world's largest automaker. GM's worldwide sales rose 7.6% to 9 million vehicles in 2011. The Detroit manufacturer last held the top spot in 2007 before it was surpassed by Toyota Motor Corp. the next year. [Los Angeles Times, 1/20/12]President Obama Delivered On His Promise To Bring Justice To Osama Bin LadenPRESIDENT OBAMA SAID HIS ADMINISTRATION WOULD REFOCUS ON OSAMA BIN LADEN AND ENDED HIS ABILITY TO ATTACK THIS NATION EVER AGAINUpon Taking Office, President Obama Announced A Strategy To Refocus U.S. Efforts In Afghanistan And Pakistan And “Disrupt, Dismantle And Defeat Al Qaeda.” ?“I want the American people to understand that we have a clear and focused goal:? to disrupt, dismantle and defeat al Qaeda in Pakistan and Afghanistan, and to prevent their return to either country in the future.? That's the goal that must be achieved.? That is a cause that could not be more just.? And to the terrorists who oppose us, my message is the same:? We will defeat you.” [Remarks by the President on a New Strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan, 03/27/09]In 2007, Barack Obama Promised He Would Act If He Had Actionable Intelligence On High-Value Targets Were In Pakistan. “I understand that President Musharraf has his own challenges. But let me make this clear. There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al Qaeda leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won’t act, we will.” [Barack Obama at the Woodrow Wilson Center, 08/01/07]On May 1, 2011, President Obama Announced An Operation Into Pakistan Had Successfully Killed Osama Bin Laden. “In a late-night appearance in the East Room of the White House, Mr. Obama declared that “justice has been done” as he disclosed that American military and?C.I.A.?operatives had finally cornered Bin Laden, the leader of?Al Qaeda, who had eluded them for nearly a decade. “ [NYT, 05/01/11]President Obama Took Emergency Action To Prevent A Great Depression And His Budget Cuts The Deficit In Half By 2014PRESIDENT OBAMA TOOK QUICK AND NECESSARY ACTION TO AVERT A SECOND GREAT DEPRESSION AND HAS PUT FORTH A PLAN THAT WOULD CUT YEARLY DEFICITS IN HALF BY 2014THE PRESIDENT’S FY2013 BUDGET WOULD CUT YEARLY DEFICITS IN HALF BY 2014, BRING DOWN THE DEFICIT AND STABILIZE THE DEBT According To Congressional Budget Office Data, The President’s FY2013 Budget Would Cut Yearly Deficits In Half By 2014. According to Congressional Budget Office data, the deficit for 2009 was $1.413 trillion, and the projected deficit for 2014 under the President’s FY2013 budget would be $702 billion. [Congressional Budget Office Historical Budget Data, Table E-11, January 2011; Congressional Budget Office Analysis Of The President’s FY2013 Budget, Table 1, March 2012]The President’s Budget, Which Incorporates Deficit Reduction Enacted In 2011, Would Cut The Deficit By More Than $4 Trillion Over The Next Decade. “That is why in this Budget, the President again has put forward a plan that will, together with the deficit reduction enacted last year, cut the deficit by more than $4 trillion over the next decade. This would put our Nation on the right course toward a level of deficits of below 3 percent of GDP by the end of the decade.” [FY2013 Budget, White House Office Of Management And Budget, February 2012]Center On Budget And Policy Priorities: President Obama’s Budget Would Stabilize The Debt Over The Coming Decade Through “A Balanced Combination Of Spending Cuts And Revenue Increases.”? “If Congress enacted the Obama budget in full?and?its economic assumptions proved correct, the debt would stabilize over the coming decade although, as the White House acknowledges, policymakers would have to subsequently enact significant further deficit reduction to keep the debt stable in future decades. The budget either achieves or approaches this key fiscal target for the coming decade with several trillion dollars in deficit reduction, through a balanced combination of spending cuts and revenue increases.” [Center On Budget And Policy Priorities, 2/16/12]The President’s FY2013 Budget Calls For Investment In Infrastructure, Education, And Manufacturing While Keeping Discretionary Spending Flat. “President Obama will call for new spending on infrastructure, education and manufacturing research, as well as higher taxes on top earners… Officials said the budget would abide by spending caps set by Congress in the August budget deal, keeping discretionary spending levels essentially flat in fiscal 2013. Over the decade, discretionary spending would drop from 8.7% of gross domestic product to 5%, officials said.” [Los Angeles Times, 2/10/12]PRESIDENT OBAMA ENTERED OFFICE FACING A TRILLION DOLLAR DEFICIT AND THE WORST FINANCIAL CRISIS SINCE THE GREAT DEPRESSIONThe Deficit For Fiscal Year 2009, Which Began More Than Three Months Before President Obama’s Inauguration, Was The Largest Deficit Relative To The Economy Since The End Of World War II. “The deficit for fiscal year 2009 — which began more than three months before President Obama’s inauguration — was $1.4 trillion and, at 10 percent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP), the largest deficit relative to the economy since the end of World War II.” [Center On Budget And Policy Priorities, 5/10/2011]Chicago Tribune: “In The Middle Of The Worst Economic Crisis Since The Great Depression,” The Obama Stimulus Package “Is Receiving General Approval From Economists” Despite A Possible Cost Of $700 Billion To $1 Trillion. “Economists?generally frown on building roads, bridges, hospitals and other projects as a tool to stimulate a sick economy. Takes too long, some say. Causes waste and inefficiency, others say. But in the middle of the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, these reservations have been largely put aside. President-elect Barack?Obama?is preparing to prime the pump like Washington politicians of old, with a vast reconstruction effort designed to create 2.5 million jobs. Despite a price tag ranging from $700 billion to $1 trillion and questions about its effectiveness, the?Obama?stimulus?package is receiving general approval from?economists?and public officials.” [Chicago Tribune, 12/10/08]The Month President Obama Took Office, The Economy Lost 818,000 Nonfarm Jobs. According to Bureau Of Labor Statistics data, the economy lost 818,000 nonfarm jobs in January 2009. [Current Employment Statistics, Bureau Of Labor Statistics, accessed 8/23/12]PRESIDENT OBAMA TOOK QUICK AND NECESSARY ACTION TO AVERT ECONOMIC CATASTROPHEUSA Today: “Eighteen Months Later, The Consensus Among Economists Is That The Stimulus Worked In Staving Off A Rerun Of The 1930s.” “Liberal?economists such as?New York?Times?columnist?Paul Krugman?complained that the massive program should have been larger and was marred by the inclusion of excessive tax cuts that would have a less-immediate impact on job creation. Republicans derided the legislation as wasteful spending that would add to ballooning government debt. Eighteen months later, the consensus among economists is that the stimulus worked in staving off a rerun of the 1930s.” ?[USA Today, 8/30/2010]The Non-Partisan Congressional Budget Office Estimated That The Recovery Act Raised Employment By As Many As 3.5 Million Jobs At The End Of 2010. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the Recovery Act raised employment in the fourth quarter of 2010 by up to 3.5 million compared with what would have occurred otherwise. [“Estimated Impact Of the American Recovery And Reinvestment Act On Employment And Economic Output From October Through December 2011,” Congressional Budget Office, February 2012]Center On Budget And Policy Priorities: Six Recovery Act Initiatives Kept 6.9 Million People Above The Poverty Line in 2010 Alone. “Using the NAS measure to analyze newly released Census data for 2010, we find that the six Recovery Act initiatives kept 6.9 million people above the poverty line in 2010. Expansions in the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) and Child Tax Credit (CTC) kept 1.6 million people out of poverty. The Making Work Pay tax credit, which expired at the end of 2010, kept another 1.5 million people out of poverty. Expansions in the duration and level of unemployment insurance benefits kept 3.4 million people out of poverty. Expansions in SNAP benefits kept 1.0 million people out of poverty” [Center On Budget And Policy Priorities, 11/7/11]Dependence On Foreign OilPRESIDENT OBAMA SAID WE WOULD LESSEN OUR DEPENDENCE ON FOREIGN OIL – AND IT IS NOW AT THE LOWEST LEVEL IN 20 YEARS4/26/08: Obama Promised to Lower Oil Dependence Through Clean Technology Investments. “The only way we are going to lower gas prices over the long term is if we start using less oil. And the only way that we do that is if we increase fuel efficiency standards on cars and invest in new technologies and alternative fuels and make biomass and biodiesel the way that we are running our automobiles. And that is going to be a long term project that we have to start right now.” [Remarks in Anderson, Indiana, 4/26/08]In The First Seven Months Of 2012, The United States’ Dependence On Foreign Oil Was At Its Lowest Level In 20 Years At 42.1 Percent. According to the Energy Information Administration, in the first seven months of 2012, the percent of net imports of petroleum as a share of petroleum products supplied averaged 42.1%. According to Energy Information Administration data, this is the lowest level since 1992 when the percent of net petroleum imports as a share of petroleum product supplied was 40.7%. [Calculated from Energy Information Administration data, Monthly Energy Review, August 2012]President Obama Delivered On His Promise To Responsibly End The War In IraqPRESIDENT OBAMA SAID HE WOULD END THE WAR IN IRAQ RESPONSIBLY, AND HE DIDPresident Obama Promised To End Combat Operations In Iraq By August 31, 2010. “President Obama said Friday he plans to withdraw most U.S. troops from Iraq by the end of August 2010…’Let me say this as plainly as I can: By August 31, 2010, our combat mission in Iraq will end,’ Obama said in a speech at Camp Lejeune, North Carolina.” [CNN, 02/27/09]President Obama Declared An End To Combat Operations In Iraq In August 2010. “President Barack Obama has hailed the end of US combat operations in Iraq, saying his country has paid ‘a huge price’ to ‘put Iraq's future in its people's hands.’” [BBC News, 09/01/10]On December 18, 2011, The Last Convoy Of US Troops Crossed The Border Out Of Iraq, Officially Ending The War In Iraq. “The last convoy of American troops drove into Kuwait on Sunday morning, punctuating the end of the nearly nine-year war in?Iraq.” [New York Times, 12/18/11]President Obama Delivered On His Promise To Cut Taxes For Middle Class Families And Small BusinessesPRESIDENT OBAMA SAID HE WOULD CUT TAXES FOR THE MIDDLE CLASS, AND HE CUT TAXES MULTIPLE TIMES FOR MIDDLE CLASS FAMILIES, PROVIDING $3,600 IN TAX RELIEF PLUS 18 TAX CUTS FOR SMALL BUSINESS1/5/08: President Obama Proposed Tax Relief For Working Families. “That's why I have proposed specific tax relief now, immediately, so that we would offset some of the payroll tax, that we would immediately put some additional dollars in the pockets of American families, working families typically making $75,000 a year or less, to not only stimulate the economy, but also to balance out a tax code. And I would pay for it very specifically by closing tax loopholes and tax havens. You've got a building in the Cayman Islands that supposedly houses 12,000 corporations. That's either the biggest building or the biggest tax scam on record.” [Remarks By Obama At St. Anselm Debate, 1/5/08]A Typical Family Making $50,000 A Year Has Seen Their Taxes Cut By $3,600 Over The Last Four Years Due To The Making Work Pay Tax Credit And The Payroll Tax Cut. “A typical family making $50,000 a year has seen their taxes cut by $3,600 over the last four years, $800 in each of 2009 and 2010 due to the Making Work Pay tax credit and $1,000 in each of 2011 and 2012 due to the payroll tax cut.” [White House National Economic Council, July 2012]: “The Truth Is That Obama Repeatedly?Cut?Taxes” For Families Making Less Than $250,000 A Year. “The latest multimillion-dollar attack ad from Crossroads GPS claims President Obama?broke a promise to not increase taxes for families making less than $250,000 a year. That’s almost entirely false. The truth is that Obama repeatedly?cut?taxes for such families, first through a tax credit in effect for 2009 and 2010, and beginning in 2011, through a reduction in the payroll tax that is worth $1,000 this year to workers earning $50,000 a year. And while it’s true that some tax increases contained in the new health care law would fall on individuals, they have mostly not taken effect yet and are small compared with the cuts the president already enacted. And this ad exaggerates them greatly.” [, 5/17/12]President Obama Has Signed 18 Tax Cuts To Support Small Business Growth. “To date, the President has supported 18 direct tax breaks that bolster small business growth. In September 2010, he signed the Small Business Jobs Act, which included eight new small business tax cuts that, among other forms of tax relief, extended accelerated bonus depreciation for two million businesses, making investment and growth more affordable; made investments in one million small firms eligible for zero capital gains taxes; and allowed two million self-employed Americans to deduct their health insurance costs when calculating their self-employment taxes.” [White House National Economic Council, May 2012]President Obama Delivered On His Promise To End Too Big To FailPRESIDENT OBAMA SAID WE’D NEVER BAIL OUT THE BANKS AGAIN, AND NOT ONLY DID HE PASS WALL STREET REFORM THAT ENDED “TO BIG TO FAIL,” BUT HE WENT AND GOT BACK EVERY TAXPAYER DOLLAR THE BANKS HAD BEEN GIVEN10/28/08: Obama Promised to Put In Place Common Sense Financial Regulations. “We don't have to choose between allowing our financial system to collapse and spending billions of taxpayer dollars to bail out Wall Street banks. As President, I will ensure that the financial rescue plan helps stop foreclosures and protects your money instead of enriching CEOs. And I will put in place the common-sense regulations I've been calling for throughout this campaign so that Wall Street can never cause a crisis like this again. That's the change we need.” [Remarks in Chester, Pennsylvania,?10/28/08]Wall Street Reform Expressly Prohibits Taxpayer Bailouts For Financial Institutions And Provides For The Orderly Liquidation Of Failing Financial Firms Funded By Bank Assets And Assessments. “The Act provides for the orderly liquidation of systemically important, failing financial companies and: Generally subjects these failing systemic financial companies (i.e., covered financial companies), including brokers and/or dealers and insurance companies, to orderly liquidation, subject to a systemic risk determination involving the FDIC, FRB, and Treasury (in consultation with the President)…The Act expressly prohibits taxpayer bailouts by: Providing that shareholders receive no payments until all other claims are paid (including claims of the FDIC and other governmental entities). Requiring unsecured creditors to bear losses in accordance with priority of claims provisions. Requiring the FDIC to ensure that management and board members responsible for failure are removed. If receivership assets are insufficient to cover the costs of orderly liquidation, requiring any funds expended in the liquidation of any financial company to be recovered through assessments as described in the Act.” [Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Staff Summary Of Wall Street Reform, 9/10/10]Non-AIG Bank Bailouts – Called “Bank Programs” By Treasury – Have Made A $21 Billion Profit For Taxpayers. [Treasury TARP Tracker, Accessed 9/8/12]September 2012: Treasury And The Federal Reserve’s Combined $182 Billion Commitment Made To Stabilize AIG During The Financial Crisis Was Fully Recovered. “Today, the U.S. Department of the Treasury announced that it has agreed to sell 553,846,153 shares of its American International Group, Inc. (AIG) common stock at $32.50 per share in an underwritten public offering. The aggregate proceeds to Treasury from the common stock offering are expected to be approximately $18.0 billion. As part of Treasury’s offering today, AIG agreed to purchase 153,846,153 shares at the public offering price of $32.50 per share – representing approximately $5.0 billion of Treasury’s expected proceeds from the sale.? Treasury has granted the underwriters a 30-day over-allotment option to purchase up to an additional 83,076,922 shares of AIG common stock. Giving effect to today’s offering, Treasury and the Federal Reserve’s combined $182 billion commitment made to stabilize AIG during the financial crisis is now fully recovered.” [Treasury Press Release, 9/10/12]ATTACKRomney Ran For Governor To Create Jobs And Failed MiserablyROMNEY RAN FOR GOVERNOR ON HIS PRIVATE SECTOR EXPERIENCE…Romney: “I'm The Only Candidate In This Race Who Has A Lifetime Of Experience In The Private Economy.? I Speak The Language Of Business, I Know How Jobs Are Created And How Jobs Are Lost.? I'm Going To Do Everything In My Power To Get Our Economy Back Working Again For The People Of Massachusetts.” [Worcester Debate, 10/1/02]Romney: “I Have Experience In The Private Sector, Building, And Creating Thousands Of Good Jobs And I Want To Bring That Skill For You Here In Massachusetts.”? [Boston Herald/Suffolk Debate, 10/29/02]Romney: “I Think The Question That They Have To Ask Themselves Is ‘Who Can Get Massachusetts Working Again?’? I’ll Come Into Office As Someone Whose Worked In The Private Sector Throughout His Career Who Knows How To Create Jobs.” [NECN Gubernatorial Debate, 10/24/02]…AND IS RUNNING ON THAT SAME EXPERIENCE NOWRomney: “I Think A Private Sector Background Is Better For Getting People Back To Work.” [WTOL (Toledo, OH), 2/16/12]2012: Romney: “But If You Want Someone Who’s Worked In The Private Sector, And I Have Successfully. I Won’t Apologize For Being Successful, That’s, That Means You’re Going To Come To Me.” [KBOI (Boise, ID), 2/17/12]Romney: “I Know How Business Works. I Know Why Jobs Come And Why They Go.” [Romney Town Hall, Manchester NH, 9/28/11]…DESPITE HIS TERRIBLE JOBS RECORD IN MASSACHUSETTSLos Angeles Times: Headline: “Romney's Spotty Jobs Record; He Says He Can Get The Nation Back To Work. That Wasn't The Case In Massachusetts.” [Los Angeles Times, 7/11/11]National Journal: Headline: “Romney's Massachusetts Job Record Not As Great As He Wants You To Think” [National Journal, 3/9/12]New York Times: “During Mr. Romney's Tenure, Massachusetts Ranked Near The Bottom - 47th Out Of 50 States - In New Job Creation.” [New York Times, 10/2/11]Romney Broke His Promise To Reduce The Debt In Massachusetts2002: ROMNEY CHASTISED HIS OPPONENT ON MASSACHUSETTS’ HIGH LEVEL OF DEBT? Romney: Ms. O’Brian, “You’ve Promised The Voted That You Would Lower The Amount Of State Debt Per Person That Exists In Massachusetts” And Yet “You Didn’t Follow That Promise, You Broke That Promise, We Now Have The Highest State Debt Per Person Of Any State In The Nation.” Romney reference Shannon O’Brien’s campaign promise on state debt during a 2002 MA Gubernatorial debate, he said: “Oh, I'm sorry, you said a question for Ms. O'Brien, yes, uh, I thought it was her turn. You know, you've promised the voters that you would lower the amount of state debt per person that exists in Massachusetts. That's a commitment that you made when you were running for office. It's tough to do that, because you don't really control the budget. And yet you said, I will stand up and engage the governor, and the legislature, I will use my bond writing capacity to assure that we do not increase the state debt per person. And yet you didn't follow that promise, you broke that promise, we now have the highest state debt per person of any state in the nation. Why did you change your pitch on that?” [Massachusetts Gubernatorial Debate, Worcester, 10/1/02]Romney Promised To Take His Experience With Cost Reduction At The Olympics To The Governor’s Office Saying: “At The Olympics We Took Out 13% Of Our Cost. We Didn’t Do That By Having Our Interest Rates Go Down. We Didn’t See Our Debt Go Through The Roof Like Massachusetts Has To The Highest In The Nation.” “Well I’m just going to come back to the treasurer’s comments, which is I’m convinced that my experience having led three different private enterprises and having had all of them become more successful the kind of experience we need on Beacon Hill. Not only the ability to create jobs, but the ability to have numbers that add up. At the Olympics we took out 13% of our cost. We didn’t do that by having our interest rates go down. We didn’t see our debt go through the roof like Massachusetts has to the highest in the nation. We instead cut cost where there was inefficiency. We took out waste. The treasurer has raised her salary. The treasurer has added to her staff. That’s not the kind of management we need on Beacon Hill.” [Mitt Romney, MA Gubernatorial Debate, 10/9/02]ROMNEY RAISED MASSACHUSETTS’ DEBT BY $2.6 BILLION – A 16 PERCENT INCREASE IN JUST 4 YEARS ?Under Romney, Massachusetts’ Long-Term Debt Increased By 16.4% Or $2.6 Billion.?According to Massachusetts Information Statement Supplements attached to bond offerings, the Commonwealth had $16,063,162,000 in long-term debt as of January 1, 2003. As of October 1, 2006, shortly before Romney left the Governor’s Office, Massachusetts had $18,697,240,000 in long-term debt. This was an increase of $2,634,078,000 or 16.4%. [Massachusetts Office Of The Treasurer, Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Information Statement Supplement,?2/28/03, p. A-22; Massachusetts Office Of The Treasurer, Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Statement Of Information Supplement,?11/10/06, p. A-24]BY THE END OF ROMNEY’S TERM MASSACHUSETTS RANKED FIRST IN THE NATION FOR HIGHEST PER CAPITA DEBT?The Republican Headline: “Mass. Tops U.S. As Debtor State.” [The Republican, 2/3/07]?The Tax Foundation Listed Massachusetts As Ranked With Highest State Debt Per Capita At The End Of Fiscal Year 2007. The Tax Foundation listed Massachusetts debt per capita as $10,546 at the end of fiscal year 2007. It was first in the nation, while Alaska was second. [Tax Foundation, Facts & Figures, 2009]Romney Broke His Promise To Reduce The Size Of Government In Massachusetts2002: ROMNEY PROMISED TO CUT THE SIZE OF GOVERNMENT IN MASSACHUSETTSRomney: “We Have 168 Different Agencies In State Government, Many Of Them Are Duplicative. We Can Combine Them And Provide Better Services To Our Citizens And Do It For Less Money.” [Mitt Romney, MA Gubernatorial Debate, 10/9/02]Romney: “There Are 160 Different Agencies. That’s Where The Waste And Unnecessary Cost Occurs.” [Mitt Romney, MA Chief Endorsement, 10/15/02]Romney: “What We’re Talking About Is In Some Agencies Looking At The Top Of Those Agencies Where The Bosses, The Bureaucrats, And The Administrators Are And We Find Opportunities To Combine Them And Make Them More Efficient.” [Mitt Romney, MA Chief Endorsement, 10/15/02]UNDER ROMNEY GOVERNMENT JOB GROWTH INCREASED AT A RATE 6 TIMES THAT OF THE PRIVATE SECTOR Under Romney, State Government Employment Increase At 6 Times The Rate Of Private Sector Job Growth.? [, accessed 9/23/11]Under Romney, The Number Of State Government Employee Increased By 5,300.? In December 2002, Massachusetts state government employed 112,000 people and in December of 2006 employment was at 17,300. [, accessed 9/23/11]The Number Of Full-Time Equivalent State Employees In Massachusetts During The Romney Administration Increased By Approximately 5 Percent. According to data from the Office of the State Comptroller, full-time equivalent employees of the Commonwealth increased from 78,328 when Romney took office in 2003 to 82,221 by the time he left in 2007. [Full Time Equivalent Employees By Function/Program Last Ten Years, Commonwealth of Massachusetts]Despite Vowing To Slash The Bureaucracy Romney Only Cut 603 Agency Jobs During His Governorship—His Predecessor Slashed 7,700 During His First Term.? “As a candidate for governor, Romney vowed to slash the state bureaucracy and now, on the presidential campaign trail, frequently says: ‘One commentator said that I didn’t just go after the sacred cows, I went after the whole herd.’ After four years, he reduced the payroll of agencies under his direct control by 603 jobs, to 43,979, according to his administration’s tally. By contrast, one of his predecessors, Weld, closed state hospitals, privatized services, and slashed about 7,700 jobs in his first term.” [Boston Globe, 6/29/07]UNDER ROMNEY, SPENDING INCREASED BY AN AVERAGE OF 6.5% EACH YEAR? – NEARLY DOUBLE THE RATE OF INFLATIONLos Angeles Times: “State Spending Rose By 22% On Romney's Watch, Nearly Double The Rate Of Inflation.” [Los Angeles Times, 6/9/12]New York Times: “Under Mr. Romney, State Spending Went From $22.3 Billion To $28.1 Billion, An Annual Increase Of 6.5 Percent.” [New York Times, 12/31/07]CHANGE THE TONE IN WASHINGTONPRO-POTUSRepublicans In Congress Made Preventing The President’s Election Their Top PrioritySEN. MCCONNELL SAID DEFEATING PRESIDENT OBAMA WAS THE MOST IMPORTANT THING REPUBLICANS WANT TO ACHIEVE, AND REPUBLICANS HAVE TAKEN ?A “GO-SLOW APPROACH” ON LEGISLATION TO PREVENT THE PRESIDENT’S? RE-ELECTION Asked If He Still Believed Defeating President Obama In 2012 Is The “Most Important Thing” Republicans Want To Achieve, Sen. McConnell Said “Of Course.” “BAIER: In the final days before the vote, Democrats use this quote from you numerous times. You told the "National Journal," quote, "The?single?most?important thing?we want to?achieve?is for?President Obama?to be a?one-term president." Do you still believe that today? MCCONNELL: Of course. I mean, I'm the Republican leader of the Senate. I want to have a Republican?president?after 2012.” [Sen. Mitch McConnell Interview, Fox News, 11/3/2010]New York Times: Before President Obama Even Took Office, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell Devised A Strategy To Deny Democrats Any Republican Support On Major Legislation. “Before the health care fight, before the economic?stimulus package, before?President Obama?even took office, Senator?Mitch McConnell, the Republican minority leader, had a strategy for his party: use his extensive knowledge of Senate procedure to slow things down, take advantage of the difficulties Democrats would have in governing and deny Democrats any Republican support on big legislation. Republicans embraced it. Democrats denounced it as rank obstructionism. Either way, it has led the two parties, as much as any other factor, to where they are right now.” [NYT, 3/16/10]Wall Street Journal Headline: “Republicans See Advantages In Go-Slow Approach On Bills” [Wall Street Journal, 6/13/12]Republican Rep. Scott Garrett Argued That There Wasn’t An “Upside” But Rather It Would “Tie Romney’s Hands” If They Passed Needed Legislation Before The Election. “Rep. Peter King (R., N.Y.) agreed that Republican prospects are improving, but he said there should be no foot-dragging on needed legislation. ‘We've got to keep working,’ he said. ‘We can't coast.’ But some Republicans say they are wary of cutting deals that would curb the options of more-conservative leadership that could be in place next year. ‘Where is the upside?’ said Rep. Scott Garrett (R., N.J.), a senior member of the House Budget Committee. ‘You tie Romney's hands. If we get a good majority in the Senate and win the White House, we will be on a very strong platform to do the things we need to do.’” [Wall Street Journal, 6/13/12]President Obama Overcame Republican Obstructionism To Pass Needed LegislationDESPITE THE OBSTRUCTIONIST APPROACH OF REPUBLICAN LEADERSHIP, PRESIDENT OBAMA WAS STILL ABLE TO WORK WITH THE REPUBLICAN CONGRESS ON A VARIETY OF ISSUESPRESIDENT OBAMA SIGNED A LAW LAST SUMMER THAT WILL REDUCE THE DEFICIT BY $1 TRILLION AND CUT DISCRETIONARY SPENDING BY $1 TRILLIONPresident Obama Signed The Budget Control Act, Which Will Cut Spending By$1 Trillion Over The Next Ten Years. “The Budget Control Act (BCA) of 2011 imposed caps on discretionary programs that will reduce their funding by more than $1 trillion over the ten years from 2012 through 2021, relative to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) baseline from 2010.? It also established a Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction to propose legislation reducing deficits by another $1.2 trillion over that period, and established a backup ‘sequestration’ procedure to increase the incentive on the Joint Committee to reach a compromise.” [Center On Budget And Policy Priorities, 4/27/12]PRESIDENT OBAMA CUT TAXES FOR THE MIDDLE CLASS AND SMALL BUSINESSESA Typical Family Making $50,000 A Year Has Seen Their Taxes Cut By $3,600 Over The Last Four Years Due To The Making Work Pay Tax Credit And The Payroll Tax Cut. “A typical family making $50,000 a year has seen their taxes cut by $3,600 over the last four years, $800 in each of 2009 and 2010 due to the Making Work Pay tax credit and $1,000 in each of 2011 and 2012 due to the payroll tax cut.” [White House National Economic Council, July 2012]President Obama Has Signed 18 Tax Cuts To Support Small Business Growth. “To date, the President has supported 18 direct tax breaks that bolster small business growth. In September 2010, he signed the Small Business Jobs Act, which included eight new small business tax cuts that, among other forms of tax relief, extended accelerated bonus depreciation for two million businesses, making investment and growth more affordable; made investments in one million small firms eligible for zero capital gains taxes; and allowed two million self-employed Americans to deduct their health insurance costs when calculating their self-employment taxes.” [White House National Economic Council, May 2012]Over The Last Three Years, President Obama Signed Into Law $200 Billion In Tax Relief And Incentives For America’s Businesses. “The President has signed into law $200 billion in tax relief and incentives for America’s businesses to encourage them to make new investments and create new jobs – relief that was paid out over the last three years.? This includes provisions that directly benefit those businesses that did the most to boost investment and hiring.” [White House Fact Sheet, 1/25/2012]PRESIDENT OBAMA SIGNED A BILL THAT WILL HELP ENTREPRENEURS BY CREATING AN IPO ON-RAMP FOR DYNAMIC YOUNG BUSINESSESPresident Obama Signed The JOBS Act, Which The Jobs Council Highlighted As An Implemented Recommendation. Included in a list of Jobs Council implementation highlights: “Nurture high-growth enterprises and improve access to capital Passed JOBS Act in March 2012 Increases the Regulation A ‘mini offering’ limit from $5 million to $50 million Allows startups and small businesses to raise up to $1 million annually from multiple small-dollar investors Creates an enhanced IPO process for Emerging Growth Companies.” [President’s Council On Jobs And Competitiveness, 2011-2012]PRESIDENT OBAMA SIGNED THREE TRADE AGREEMENTS TO EXPAND MARKETS FOR US GOODS AROUND THE WORLD, TAKING THE BIGGEST STEP FORWARD IN TRADE LIBERALIZATION IN NEARLY TWO DECADESAssociated Press: Romney Has “Ignored The Most Significant Expansion Of Trade Ties In Nearly Two Decades” In Accusing President Obama Of “Doing Nothing To Open New Markets.” “Mitt Romney ignored the most significant expansion of trade ties in nearly two decades when he accused the Obama administration Monday night of doing nothing to open new markets. Rick Santorum claimed to be taking purely the high road in campaign ads even as a new one from him veered from that path.”[Associated Press, 1/17/2012]President Obama Signed Free Trade Agreements With South Korea, Colombia And Panama In The Largest Trade Deal Since 1994, With The Agreements To Support An Estimated 70,000 Jobs.?“President Barack Obama will sign the South Korea, Colombia and Panama free trade agreements on Oct. 21, the White House announced. The accords were approved by Congress last week. The agreement with South Korea is the largest trade deal since 1994 and will widen U.S. export access for everything from cars to farm goods and support about 70,000 jobs, according to the administration.” [Bloomberg,?10/18/11]PRESIDENT OBAMA SIGNED THE NEW START TREATYThe New START Treaty Reduces The Number Of Strategic Offensive Arms In Both Russia And The United States. “Under the Treaty, the U.S. and Russia will be limited to significantly fewer strategic arms within seven years from the date the Treaty enters into force.? Each Party has the flexibility to determine for itself the structure of its strategic forces within the aggregate limits of the Treaty.? These limits are based on a rigorous analysis conducted by Department of Defense planners in support of the 2010 Nuclear Posture Review.” [White House Press Release, 03/26/10]THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION CREATED RACE TO THE TOP TO SPUR EDUCATION REFORM, EVEN THOUGH THIS WAS NOT VERY POPULAR WITH THE TEACHERS UNIONSPresident Obama's Race To The Top Is The Largest-Ever Federal Competitive Investment In School Reform. “The $4.35 billion Race to the Top Fund is the largest-ever federal competitive investment in school reform.” [Department of Education Fact Sheet, 12/2009]For Less Than 1 Percent Of Total Education Spending Nationwide, 19 States Received Race To The Top Funding, Benefitting 22 Million Students. “For less than 1% of total education spending nationwide—19 states received Race to the Top funding, benefitting 22 million students.” [Education Blueprint: An Economy Built to Last, White House, Accessed 04/16/12]The National Education Association Attacked President Obama’s Race To The Top Initiative, Saying It Emphasized A “Narrow Agenda,” Centered On Charter Schools, And Echoed The Bush Administration. “The nation's largest teachers union sharply attacked President Obama's most significant school improvement initiative on Friday evening, saying that it puts too much emphasis on a ‘narrow agenda’ centered on charter schools and that it echoes the Bush administration's ‘top-down approach’ to reform. The National Education Association's criticism of Obama's $4.35 billion ‘Race to the Top’ initiative came nearly a month after he unveiled the competitive grant program.” [Washington Post, 08/22/09]The National Education Association Said It Could Not Support Race To The Top Because It Was “Yet Another Layer Of Federal Mandates That Have Little Or No Research Base Of Success” And “Usurp State And Local Government’s” Education Responsibilities. “The union said Race to the Top contradicts administration pledges to give states more flexibility in how they improve schools. ‘We find this top-down approach disturbing; we have been down that road before with the failures of No Child Left Behind,’ the [National Education Association] wrote in its comments, ‘and we cannot support yet another layer of federal mandates that have little or no research base of success and that usurp state and local government's responsibilities for public education.’” [Washington Post, 08/22/09]Delegates To The National Education Association Voted To Take A Position Of “No Confidence” In The U.S. Department Of Education’s Race To The Top Guidelines. [Ed Week, 7/14/10]WITH CONGRESS, PRESIDENT OBAMA WORKED TO REFORM OUR PATENT SYSTEM FOR THE FIRST TIME SINCE 1952 TO CUT AWAY RED TAPE THAT SLOWS DOWN INVENTORSPresident Obama Signed The America Invents Act Into Law, The First Significant Change To Patent Law Since 1952. “President Barack Obama will sign the America Invents Act on Friday, the first significant change in patent law since 1952. The president will travel to Thomas Jefferson High School for Science and Technology in Alexandria, Va., for the ceremony. He'll also watch demonstrations of several student projects. The legislation is aimed at streamlining the patent process and reducing costly legal battles.” [Huffington Post, 9/16/11]The America Invests Act Created A Fast Track Option For Patent Processing Within 12 Months. “Instead of an average wait time of almost three years, the Patent and Trademark Office will be able to offer startups growing companies an opportunity to have important patents reviewed in one-third the time – with a new fast track option that has a guaranteed 12-month turnaround. Patent ownership is a critical factor venture capital companies consider when investing in entrepreneurs hoping to grow their business.” [White House Press Release, 9/16/2011]The American Invents Act Will Increase The Ability Of American Inventors To Protect Their Intellectual Property Abroad. “The new law will harmonize the American patent process with the rest of the world to make it more efficient and predictable, and make it easier for entrepreneurs to simultaneously market products in the U.S. and for exporting abroad. The Patent and Trademark Office has also expanded work-sharing with other patent offices around the world to increase efficiency and speed patent processing for applicants seeking protection in multiple jurisdictions.” [White House Press Release, 9/16/2011]President Obama Stood Up To His Party To Do The Right Thing For The Middle ClassPRESIDENT OBAMA STOOD UP TO HIS PARTY TO GET THINGS DONEPRESIDENT OBAMA STOOD UP TO MEMBERS OF HIS OWN PARTY TO GET TRADE AGREEMENTS FINALIZEDTampa Bay Times PolitiFact: President Obama Took On Political Risk To Secure The Passage Of Free Trade Agreements. “All three [trade] deals were initially forged under President George W. Bush, but Bush was unable to get the deals past a Democratic-controlled Congress…Even though negotiations with lawmakers dragged on, the administration was ultimately able to secure a legislative formulation that could garner enough votes to pass. Doing so required some political risk for the president with his own base, since a sizable faction within his own party is skeptical of expanding free trade agreements.” [Tampa Bay Times, PolitiFact, 1/8/12]Tampa Bay Times PolitiFact Rated The Claim That President Obama Had Opened No New Trade Deals “False.” [PolitiFact, 1/28/2012] MANY OF PRESIDENT OBAMA’S EDUCATION POLICIES HAVE BEEN MORE POPULAR WITH REPUBLICANS THAN WITH MEMBERS OF HIS OWN PARTYObama’s Agenda Has Amplified Ideas That Have Been Simmering Around The Country, Including Those Championed By Republicans. “Obama’s agenda has amplified ideas that have been simmering around the country, including those championed by Republicans, among them the push to give parents more choice about where children attend school and to blast apart a long-standing system that rewarded teachers for longevity but not necessarily effectiveness.”? [Washington Post, 09/20/12]Obama Has Often Challenged Union Orthodoxy In His Education Agenda, Promoting The Expansion Of Public Charter Schools And Teacher Performance Pay. “Obama has often challenged union orthodoxy in his education agenda, promoting the expansion of public charter schools -- which frequently are not unionized -- and teacher performance pay. The two major national educators unions are not formally opposed to those ideas, but many of their members are skeptical.” [Washington Post, 03/02/10]Gov. Jeb Bush On Obama Challenging A Core Constituency Of His Own Political Base: “I Think We Should Pause And Give Them Credit. This Is The Place Where President Obama Has Done This.” “We have a different approach as it relates to school choice and I think we need accelerate more provocative reforms, but having said that anytime an elected official in the world we are in today that appears so dysfunctional challenges a core constituency not of their opponent, but of their own political base I think we should pause and give them credit. This is the place where President Obama has done this.” [Education News, 06/11/12]Governor Chris Christie: President Had Done A Good Job “In Terms Of Talking About Things Like Tenure Reform, Things Like School Choice.” “Margaret Brennan: ‘If it's not about money, what kind of incentives would you ask from President Obama if he's talking about investing in education?’ Governor Christie: ‘Loosen the mandates, loosen the strings, let governors manage and lead by example on reform. And I think the President has done a good job on this, in terms of talking about things like tenure reform, things like school choice.’” [Bloomberg TV Transcript, 01/25/11 accessed via Lexis]ATTACKIf Romney’s Partisan Record In Massachusetts Is Any Guide, He Won’t Change The Tone In WashingtonROMNEY’S CLAIM THAT HE GOVERNED MASSACHUSETTS AS A BIPARTISAN IS A SHAMNew York Times: “In Contrast To His Statements In The Debate, Many Say, Mr. Romney Neither Mastered The Art Of Reaching Across The Aisle Nor Achieved Unusual Success As Governor.” “But in contrast to his statements in the debate, many say, Mr. Romney neither mastered the art of reaching across the aisle nor achieved unusual success as governor. To the contrary, they say, his relations with Democrats could be acrimonious, and his ability to get big things done could be just as shackled as is President Obama’s ability to push his agenda through a hostile House of Representatives.” [New York Times, 10/5/12]New York Times: As Massachusetts Governor, “Bipartisanship Was In Short Supply; Statehouse Democrats Complained He Variously Ignored, Insulted Or Opposed Them, With Intermittent Charm Offensives.” [New York Times, 10/5/12]ROMNEY WAS DISENGAGED FROM HIS JOB, AND MORE FOCUSED ON “RAISING HIS NATIONAL PROFILE”Boston Herald Columnist Kimberly Atkins: Romney’s Second Half Of His Term Was “Focused Largely On Raising His National Profile With Frequent Out-Of-State Trips” And By The End Of His Term, Romney “Checked Out Of Bay State Politics.” “The second half of Romney’s term focused largely on raising his national profile with frequent out-of-state trips — which took him across the country and even as far as Guantanamo Bay, Rome and Afghanistan — and his duties as chairman of the Republican Governors Association. By the end of his term, Romney had checked out of Bay State politics and moved to the right politically to such an extent he alienated not only the state’s Democrats, but its Republicans as well. Voters chose a Democratic governor — something they hadn’t done in 16 years.” [Columnist Kimberley Atkins, Boston Herald, 10/15/12]Romney Spent “More Than A Year” Out Of State As Governor, And “More Than 70 Percent Of That Time Was Spent On Personal Or Political Trips Unrelated To His Job.” “During Mr. Romney’s four-year term as governor of Massachusetts, he cumulatively spent more than a year — part or all of 417 days — out of the state, according to a review of his schedule and other records. More than 70 percent of that time was spent on personal or political trips unrelated to his job, a New York Times analysis found. Mr. Romney, now the Republican presidential nominee, took lengthy vacations and weekend getaways.” [New York Times, 10/13/12]New York Times: “But Much Of His Travel Was To Lay The Groundwork For The Presidential Ambitions He Would Pursue In The 2008 Election, Two Years After Leaving Office.” [New York Times, 10/13/12]New York Times: “During His Last Year As Governor, He Was Largely An Absentee Chief Executive.” [New York Times, 10/13/12]MASSACHUSETTS LEADERSHIP DISPUTE CLAIMS THAT ROMNEY WORKED WITH THEMFormer Massachusetts Senate President Tom Birmingham: “To Call [Romney] Disengaged Would Be Charitable.” “’He made no effort to get acquainted with lawmakers,’ said Tom Birmingham, a former state Senate president who left just before Romney took office. ‘To call him disengaged would be charitable.’" [Associated Press, 8/2/12]Former Massachusetts House Speaker Tom Finneran: “Initially His Sense Was, `I Have Been Elected Governor, I Am The CEO Here And You Guys Are The Board Of Directors And You Monitor The Implementation Of What I Say.’” [Associated Press, 8/2/12]After “Romney Delivered A Powerpoint Presentation Brimming With Numbers And Charts On His Plan For Fixing The Budget,” Former House Speaker Tom Finneran Said “Romney Was Issuing Marching Orders Not Seeking Their Advice.” “Former House Speaker Tom Finneran, a Democrat, recalled being "summoned" along with fellow legislative leaders by Romney for a meeting on the state's fiscal crisis early in Romney's term. Romney delivered a PowerPoint presentation brimming with numbers and charts on his plan for fixing the budget. Finneran said it quickly became apparent that Romney was issuing marching orders, not seeking their advice.” [Associated Press, 8/2/12]Associated Press: “Some Democratic Lawmakers Accused Romney Of Being Aloof, Unapproachable And Not Much Interested In Working With Them” And His “Legislative Agenda On Big Issues Like Transportation And Higher Education Fizzled As A Result.” “Some Democratic lawmakers accused Romney of being aloof, unapproachable and not much interested in working with them to build the kind of friendships and alliances that are needed to help pass legislation. They say Romney's legislative agenda on big issues like transportation and higher education fizzled as a result.” [Associated Press, 8/2/12]ROMNEY WAS MORE INTERESTED IN PICKING FIGHTS THAN BUILDING COALITIONSAs Governor, Romney Had A Style Marked By “Disinterest In Bipartisan Collaboration.” “Romney's ability to wield the bully pulpit circumventing inflexible lawmakers and appealing directly to the public was a hallmark of his tenure, and it hints at the CEO style of leadership that he might bring to the White House. The flip side of that style is Romney's relative disinterest in bipartisan collaboration, a practice that's already rare in Washington.” [National Journal, 11/10/11]As Governor, Romney “Furnished The Massachusetts Press Corps, Always Looking For Conflict, With A Running Narrative Of Combat” Against Democratic Legislators – A Departure From His GOP Predecessors. “Instead of trying to cut deals with legislators, Romney positioned himself as the anti-Beacon-Hill governor, capitalizing on public mistrust of what his campaign team had framed as the Democratic ‘gang.’ He furnished the Massachusetts press corps, always looking for conflict, with a running narrative of combat. That was a departure from the collegiality of Romney's GOP predecessors. With Bill Weld, Paul Cellucci, and then Swift, Democratic legislators were accustomed to chief executives who either rose along similar career paths, as did Cellucci and Swift, or showed Brahmin bemusement at their roguish ways, as did Weld.” [National Journal, 11/10/11]Boston Herald Columnist Kimberly Atkins: “For The Most Part, Romney’s Relationship With The Democratic Leadership In Boston And Washington Was Marked Much More By Battles Than Bipartisanship.”[Columnist Kimberley Atkins, Boston Herald, 10/15/12]MetroWest Daily News Editorial: Romney Failed To Establish Strong Working Relationship With Legislative Leaders And Seemed More Interested In “Picking The Right Fights Than In Building Coalitions To Solve Problems.”? “Gov. Mitt Romney makes his official exit today, taking the traditional ‘lone walk’ down the State House steps a day early so as not to run into Deval Patrick’s inauguration ceremony. That act is symbolic in two ways: He leaves as a loner with his own personal agenda, who never became a full member of Massachusetts’ governing class, and he’s leaving before his term is officially finished, though months after he turned his attention away from the Bay State in pursuit of national office…Some had potential, but Romney failed to do the political work required to bring them to fruition. Romney never established a solid working relationship with legislative leaders.? And while he is a good speaker and effective on the stump, he leaves the Massachusetts Republican Party weaker than ever…Too often, though, Romney has appeared more interested in picking the right fights than in building coalitions to solve problems.”? [Editorial,?MetroWest Daily News, 1/3/07]ROMNEY’S OFFICE WASN’T OPEN TO LAWMAKERSAs Governor, Romney Commandeered One Of The Massachusetts Statehouse Elevators, Barring The Public, Lawmakers And Reporters From Using It. “Veteran lawmakers complained about lack of access to Romney, a perception that wasn't helped by his decision to commandeer one of the Statehouse elevators, barring the public, lawmakers and reporters from using it during his four-year term. The elevator became a symbol of his aloofness. (It was reopened to the public after he left.)” [Associated Press, 2/4/12]Lawmakers “Complained About Romney's Unprecedented Move To Block Off One State House Elevator Specifically For The Governor's Office.” “On this reporter's unannounced visit to the Legislature, there was no shortage of Democratic lawmakers who complained about Romney's unprecedented move to block off one State House elevator specifically for the governor's office. ‘He took over the elevator for the west wing of the building. He kept it only for his staff and him,’ Smizik said. Listening in on Smizik's comments, another Democrat, state Rep. Ellen Story, said the elevator restrictions and security ropes installed outside Romney's office turned off some lawmakers for good.” [CNN, 6/7/12]While Romney Was Governor, Troopers Erected Velvet Ropes In Front Of Romney’s Office And “Ensured That Few Approached The Governor Who Were Not Expected.” “During Romney’s four years as governor, the troopers reserved one of the two elevators outside the Corner Office solely for Romney’s use. They also erected velvet ropes in front of his office, allowing only those approved to enter. The beefy men and unflinching women of the detail ensured that few approached the governor who were not expected.” [Boston Globe, 2/3/12]ROMNEY TURNED HIS BACK ON THE BIPARTISAN TRADITION IN MASSACHUSETTSAs Governor, Romney “Dismantled A Network Of Legislative Liaisons That Lawmakers Had Long Relied Upon For Expertise On How To Word A Bill Or Assist A Constituent, Requiring Them Instead To Route All Requests Through The Governor’s Office.” “Once in office, Mr. Romney brought a top-down, business-minded approach to government, even if it meant brushing aside cherished legislative traditions. He quickly dismantled a network of legislative liaisons that lawmakers had long relied upon for expertise on how to word a bill or assist a constituent, requiring them instead to route all requests through the governor’s office. ‘He wanted to control everything,’ said Pamela P. Resor, a state senator who objected to the change.” [New York Times, 3/9/12]Boston Herald Columnist Kimberly Atkins: MA Lawmakers “Often Voiced Frustration Over A Lack Of Engagement With The Governor’s Office, A Stark Change From Previous GOP Administrations.” [Columnist Kimberley Atkins, Boston Herald, 10/15/12]New York Times’ Robert Draper: In Contrast With Previous Massachusetts Republican Governors, Romney Failed To Build Political Alliances With Democrats In State Legislature.?“Romney’s failure to muster such a consensus had little to do with his party affiliation: other Republican governors in Massachusetts, like Frank Sargent and William Weld, long profited from excellent relations with their Democratic counterparts in the State Legislature. But what Sargent and Weld had that the Bain C.E.O. lacked was experience in forming political alliances and reaching compromises. ‘For better or for worse, he hadn’t been a creature of the Legislature, and neither was his lieutenant governor,’ says Brad Jones, the minority leader. ‘Maybe that’s a good thing on the campaign trail, but it makes governing a challenge when you don’t have the relationships.’” [Robert Draper, New York Times,?10/2/12]ROMNEY DOESN’T HAVE THE RIGHT TO TAKE CREDIT FOR MANY OF HIS SO-CALLED BIPARTISAN ACHIEVEMENTSNew York Times: “On Close Scrutiny, Some Of The Bipartisan Successes That Mr. Romney Claimed In The Wednesday Debate Turn Out To By Peppered With Asterisks.” [New York Times, 10/5/12]New York Times: Massachusetts Educators “Largely Credit” Romney’s Predecessor, Governor Weld, Not Romney, For “An Overarching Reform Of State Schools 10 Years Earlier.” “On education, Mr. Romney was correct in stating that Massachusetts students were ranked first in the nation during his tenure. Students in grades four and eight took top honors in reading and mathematics on the 2003 National Assessment of Educational Progress.? However, educators largely credit an overarching reform of state schools 10 years earlier under Governor Weld. The reforms doubled state spending on schools and brought standards and accountability to administrators and students.? ‘Governor Romney does not get to take the credit for achieving that No. 1 ranking,’ said Mike Gilbert, field director for the nonprofit Massachusetts Association of School Committees, ‘but it did happen while he was in office.’” [New York Times, 10/5/12]Field Director For Massachusetts Association Of School Committees Mike Gilbert: “Governor Romney Does Not Get To Take The Credit For Achieving That No. 1 Ranking.” “‘Governor Romney does not get to take the credit for achieving that No. 1 ranking,’ said Mike Gilbert, field director for the nonprofit Massachusetts Association of School Committees, ‘but it did happen while he was in office.’” [New York Times, 10/5/12]Many Of The Tax Cuts Romney Claimed Credit For As Governor “Were Proposed By The Legislature” Not Him, And “Others Were Routine Extensions Of Existing Tax Reductions Or Were One-Day Sales Tax Holidays.” “Mr. Romney’s claim that he was responsible for 19 separate tax cuts is also technically accurate, but not the full story. In 2005, for example, Mr. Romney’s administration wrote legislation refunding $250 million in capital gains taxes — but the bill came only in response to a court ruling that the taxes had been illegally withheld in 2002.? Many of the other tax cuts were first proposed by the legislature, not Mr. Romney, and others were routine extensions of existing tax reductions or were one-day sales tax holidays.” [New York Times, 10/5/12]FIGHTING FOR THE MIDDLE CLASSPRO-POTUSPresident Obama Is Fighting To Restore Economic Security For The Middle ClassPRESIDENT OBAMA IS FIGHTING TO RESTORE MIDDLE CLASS SECURITY THAT HAD BEEN DECLINING FOR MORE THAN A DECADE BEFORE HE TOOK OFFICEMIDDLE CLASS SECURITY HAD BEEN ERODING EVEN BEFORE THE RECESSIONSince 2000, The Middle Class Has Shrunken In Size And Fallen Backwards In Income And Wealth. “As the 2012 presidential candidates prepare their closing arguments to America’s middle class, they are courting a group that has endured a lost decade for economic well-being. Since 2000, the middle class has shrunk in size, fallen backward in income and wealth, and shed some—but by no means all—of its characteristic faith in the future.” [Pew Research Center, 8/22/12]UNDER PRESIDENT OBAMA’S LEADERSHIP, THE ECONOMY HAS GONE FROM LOSING 800,000 JOBS A MONTH TO ADDING?5.2 MILLION PRIVATE SECTOR JOBS OVER THE LAST 31 MONTHS, AND MEDIAN INCOME INCREASED OVER THE LAST YEARThe U.S. Economy Has Added 5.2 Million Private Sector Jobs In The Last 31 Months.?In February 2010, the U.S. economy employed 106,773,000 people in the private sector. In September 2012, the U.S. economy employed 111,952,000 people in the private sector, gaining 5,179,000 jobs over the 31 month period, including the CES preliminary benchmark revision to March 2012 data. [Current Employment Statistics, Bureau Of Labor Statistics, accessed?10/5/12; CES Preliminary Benchmark Announcement, Bureau Of Labor Statistics, 9/27/12]?Private Sector Job Growth Has Continued For 31 Consecutive Months. [Bureau of Labor Statistics, accessed?10/5/12]When President Obama Took Office The Economy Was Losing 800,000 Jobs A Month. According to Bureau of Labor Statistics data, the average of nonfarm job losses in January 2009, March 2009, and February 2009 totals 780,000. [Bureau of Labor Statistics, accessed 9/4/12]Median Household Income Increased $946 Between August 2011 And August 2012. According To Sentier Research, median household income increased $1,176 from $49,732 in August 2011 to $50,678 in August 2012. [Trends In Household Income, Sentier Research, 9/10/12]PRESIDENT OBAMA? DELIVERED ON HIS PROMISE TO CUT TAXES FOR MIDDLE CLASS FAMILIES, AND IS FIGHTING TO EXTEND MIDDLE CLASS TAXES FOR 98 PERCENT OF AMERICAN FAMILIES AND 97 PERCENT OF SMALL BUSINESSBloomberg Headline: “Obama Delivers On Tax Cut Promises” [Bloomberg, 4/17/2012]A Typical Family Making $50,000 A Year Has Seen Their Taxes Cut By $3,600 Over The Last Four Years Due To The Making Work Pay Tax Credit? In 2009 And 2010 And The Payroll Tax Cut In 2011 And 2012. “A typical family making $50,000 a year has seen their taxes cut by $3,600 over the last four years, $800 in each of 2009 and 2010 due to the Making Work Pay tax credit and $1,000 in each of 2011 and 2012 due to the payroll tax cut.” [White House National Economic Council, July 2012]The Payroll Tax Cut Saves The Average Household Earning $50,000 A Year $1,000 In Taxes Annually, Or $40 Per Pay Period. “If you're an average taxpayer, making $50,000 a year, you'll pay an extra $1,000 in Social Security tax next year. That's about $20 a week, or about $40 a pay period for those who get paid every other week.” [MSN Money, 12/20/2011President Obama Has Signed 18 Tax Cuts To Support Small Business Growth. “To date, the President has supported 18 direct tax breaks that bolster small business growth. In September 2010, he signed the Small Business Jobs Act, which included eight new small business tax cuts that, among other forms of tax relief, extended accelerated bonus depreciation for two million businesses, making investment and growth more affordable; made investments in one million small firms eligible for zero capital gains taxes; and allowed two million self-employed Americans to deduct their health insurance costs when calculating their self-employment taxes.” [White House National Economic Council, May 2012]President Obama Proposed Extending Middle Class Tax Cuts For The 98 Percent Of Families Making Less Than $250,000.? “Under the President’s proposal, the 98 percent of American families with incomes of less than $250,000 per year would continue to benefit in full from the income tax cuts expiring at the end of 2012…The President’s proposal and legislation introduced by Congressional Democrats would provide certainty for the 114 million middle class families whose taxes will go up on January 1 if Congress does not act.” [White House National Economic Council, July 2012]The President’s Proposal To Extend The Middle Class Tax Cuts Would Continue All Tax Cuts On Business Income For 97 Percent Of Small Business Owners. “Even using an overly broad definition of small business owner, the President’s proposal to extend the middle class tax cuts would continue all tax cuts on business income for 97 percent of ‘small business owners.’” [White House?National Economic Council, July 2012]THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT PROVIDES?HEALTH CARE TAX CREDITS AND WILL LOWER PREMIUM COSTS FOR THE MIDDLE CLASSBeginning In 2014, Individuals And Families Can Take A New Health Care Premium Tax Credit To Help Them Afford Insurance Purchased Through An Affordable Insurance Exchange. “Starting in 2014, individuals and families can take a new premium tax credit to help them afford health insurance coverage purchased through an Affordable Insurance Exchange. Exchanges will operate in every state and the District of Columbia. The premium tax credit is refundable so taxpayers who have little or no income tax liability can still benefit. The credit also can be paid in advance to a taxpayer’s insurance company to help cover the cost of premiums.”? [Internal Revenue Service, 11/30/11]According To The Congressional Budget Office, By 2017, 18 Million Individuals In The Health Insurance Exchanges Are Projected To Receive Premium Credits.?[Congressional Budget Office,?03/13/12]The Average Exchange Subsidy Per Subsidized Enrolled Will Be $4,780 In 2014. [Table 3, Congressional Budget Office, 03/2012]In 2014, Annual Premiums Are Projected To Fall? Compared To What They Would Be Without The Affordable Care Act, With The Savings Being As Much As $2,300 For Middle-Income Families Purchasing Through Exchanges.? “In 2014, annual premiums are projected to fall compared to what they would have been without the Affordable Care Act. These savings could be as much as $2,300 for middle-income families purchasing through Exchanges.” [, 01/28/11]PRESIDENT OBAMA DOUBLED PELL GRANT FUNDING, FOUGHT TO MAKE COLLEGE MORE AFFORDABLE AND LAUNCHED INNOVATIVE EDUCATION REFORM THAT HAS BENEFITED MILLIONS OF STUDENTSPresident Obama Doubled Funding For Pell Grants, Raising The Maximum Award And Increasing The Number Of Recipients To Nearly 10 Million Students. “Thanks in part to these new investments, President Obama has roughly doubled funding for the need-based Pell Grant program, raising the maximum award from $4,731 in fiscal year 2008 to an estimated $5,635 for fiscal year 2013 and increasing the number of recipients by approximately 50 percent to nearly 10 million students.” [Department of Education Budget Summary, Accessed 04/15/12]President Obama Established The American Opportunity Tax Credit, Which Provides Up To $10,000 For Up To Four Years In Tuition Relief. “The President created the American Opportunity Tax Credit (AOTC) as part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, which he signed into law in February 2009. The AOTC replaces the Hope Scholarship credit for Tax Years 2009 and 2010, increasing the benefits for nearly all Hope credit recipients and many other students by providing a maximum benefit up to $2,500 per student – 100 percent of their first $2,000 in tuition and 25 percent of the next $2,000 –expanding the income range over which taxpayers can claim a credit, and making the credit partially refundable. 4.5 Million Students and Families Received a Tax Refund from the AOTC in 2009 With an Average Value of $800, which they would not have been eligible for in 2008.” [Department of the Treasury, 10/12/10]In 2011, 9.4 Million Families Benefitted From The American Opportunity Tax Credit. ?“Through the American Opportunity Tax Credit, 9.4 million families in 2011 received as much as $2,500 for tuition, fees, and textbook expenses.” [The Christian Science Monitor, 01/13/12]President Obama Signed Legislation Stopping Interest Rates From Doubling For An Estimated 7.4 Million Students Expected To Get New Loans This Year.“It also keeps interest rates of 3.4 percent for subsidized Stafford loans for undergraduates. If Congress hadn't acted, the rate would have doubled beginning July 1 for an estimated 7.4 million students expected to get new loans this year, adding an extra $1,000 to the average cost of each loan.” [The Associated Press, 07/06/12]President Obama's Race To The Top Is The Largest-Ever Federal Competitive Investment In School Reform. “The $4.35 billion Race to the Top Fund is the largest-ever federal competitive investment in school reform.” [Department of Education Fact Sheet, 12/2009]For Less Than 1 Percent Of Total Education Spending Nationwide, 19 States Received Race To The Top Funding, Benefitting 22 Million Students. “For less than 1% of total education spending nationwide—19 states received Race to the Top funding, benefitting 22 million students.” [White House, Accessed 04/16/12]PRESIDENT OBAMA’S FUEL ECONOMY STANDARDS WILL SAVE DRIVERS MORE THAN $8,000 AT THE PUMP – ROUGHLY EQUIVALENT TO LOWERING THE PRICE OF GAS BY $1The Obama Administration’s Fuel Economy Standards Will Double The Fuel Economy Of Cars And Light Trucks By 2025. “The Obama administration on Tuesday introduced new rules to double fuel economy for cars and light-duty trucks by 2025, a move that the White House says will be comparable to cutting a dollar a gallon from the price of gasoline and that auto dealers warned would raise the cost of a new car.” [McClatchy Newspapers, 8/28/12]The Obama Administration’s Fuel Efficiency Program Save The Average Car Buyer More Than $8,000 At The Pump. From an Environmental Protection Agency press release: “The Administration’s combined efforts represent the first meaningful update to fuel efficiency standards in decades. Together, they will save American families more than $1.7 trillion dollars in fuel costs, resulting in an average fuel savings of more than $8,000 by 2025 over the lifetime of the vehicle.” [Environmental Protection Agency Press Release, 8/28/12]The Obama Administration’s Fuel Economy Standards Will Create Savings At The Pump Roughly Equivalent To Lowering The Price Of Gasoline By $1. “The Administration’s combined efforts represent the first meaningful update to fuel efficiency standards in decades. Together, they will save American families more than $1.7 trillion dollars in fuel costs, resulting in an average fuel savings of more than $8,000 by 2025 over the lifetime of the vehicle. For families purchasing a model Year 2025 vehicle, the net savings will be comparable to lowering the price of gasoline by approximately $1 per gallon.” [Environmental Protection Agency Press Release, 8/28/12]President Obama Is Fighting To Help Middle Class Families Earn More And Keep More Of What They EarnMEDIAN HOUSEHOLD INCOME HAS INCREASED OVER THE LAST YEAR, AND PRESIDENT OBAMA HAS CUT TAXES TO HELP WORKING FAMILIES KEEP MORE OF WHAT THEY EARNPRESIDENT OBAMA IS FIGHTING TO RESTORE A HEALTHY ECONOMY AND REVERSE THE DECADE-LONG TREND OF EROSION OF MIDDLE CLASS JOBS AND INCOMESPresident Obama Said “Our Economy Won’t Truly Be Healed Until We Reverse That Much Longer And Profound Erosion Of Middle Class Jobs And Middle Class Incomes.” “Not only are we digging out of a hole that is 9 million jobs deep, we’re digging out from an entire decade where 6 million manufacturing jobs left our shores; where costs rose but incomes and wages didn’t; and where the middle class fell further and further behind.?So recovering from the crisis of 2008 has always been the first and most urgent order of business -- but it’s not enough.? Our economy won’t be truly healthy until we reverse that much longer and profound erosion of middle-class jobs and middle-class incomes.?[President Obama, Remarks on the Economy, 6/14/12]Pew Research Center:Since 2000, The Middle Class Has Shrunken In Size And Fallen Backwards In Income And Wealth. “As the 2012 presidential candidates prepare their closing arguments to America’s middle class, they are courting a group that has endured a lost decade for economic well-being. Since 2000, the middle class has shrunk in size, fallen backward in income and wealth, and shed some—but by no means all—of its characteristic faith in the future.” [Pew Research Center, 8/22/12]MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD INCOME HAS INCREASED OVER THE LAST YEARMedian Household Income Increased $946 Between August 2011 And August 2012. According To Sentier Research, median household income increased $1,176 from $49,732 in August 2011 to $50,678 in August 2012. [Trends In Household Income, Sentier Research, 9/10/12]CENSUS DATA EXCLUDES THE VALUE OF PAYROLL TAX CUTS AND BENEFIT EXPANSIONS PRESIDENT OBAMA SIGNED INTO LAWCensus Data Excludes The Value Of Payroll Tax Cuts And Benefit Expansions President Obama Signed Into Law. “First, both the Sentier data and the annual median income data from the Census Bureau that we cited earlier refer to pre-tax income and exclude "near-cash" benefits such as food stamps and housing assistance. However, several economists told PolitiFact that using post-tax income and including food stamps and housing assistance in the calculation (data that is generally hard to come by) would likely show smaller declines than the ones recorded by either the Sentier or official Census Bureau data, and would offer a more useful picture of what was actually happening economically on the household level. The difference would stem in part from payroll tax cuts and tax credits signed by President Barack Obama, as well as growing numbers of Americans receiving food stamps in recent years -- neither of which are reflected in the figures Romney cited.” [Tampa Bay Times, PolitiFact, 1/23/2012]PRESIDENT OBAMA DELIVERED ON HIS PROMISE TO CUT TAXES FOR MIDDLE CLASS FAMILIES AND HAS A PLAN TO KEEP MIDDLE CLASS TAXES LOW FOR 98 PERCENT OF AMERICAN FAMILIES AND 97 PERCENT OF SMALL BUSINESSESBloomberg Headline: “Obama Delivers On Tax Cut Promises” [Bloomberg, 4/17/2012]A Typical Family Making $50,000 A Year Has Seen Their Taxes Cut By $3,600 Over The Last Four Years Due To The Making Work Pay Tax Credit In 2009 And 2010 And The Payroll Tax Cut In 2011 And 2012. “A typical family making $50,000 a year has seen their taxes cut by $3,600 over the last four years, $800 in each of 2009 and 2010 due to the Making Work Pay tax credit and $1,000 in each of 2011 and 2012 due to the payroll tax cut.” [White House National Economic Council, July 2012]President Obama Has Signed 18 Tax Cuts To Support Small Business Growth. “To date, the President has supported 18 direct tax breaks that bolster small business growth. In September 2010, he signed the Small Business Jobs Act, which included eight new small business tax cuts that, among other forms of tax relief, extended accelerated bonus depreciation for two million businesses, making investment and growth more affordable; made investments in one million small firms eligible for zero capital gains taxes; and allowed two million self-employed Americans to deduct their health insurance costs when calculating their self-employment taxes.” [White House National Economic Council, May 2012]President Obama Proposed Extending Middle Class Tax Cuts For The 98 Percent Of Families Making Less Than $250,000.? “Under the President’s proposal, the 98 percent of American families with incomes of less than $250,000 per year would continue to benefit in full from the income tax cuts expiring at the end of 2012…The President’s proposal and legislation introduced by Congressional Democrats would provide certainty for the 114 million middle class families whose taxes will go up on January 1 if Congress does not act.” [White House National Economic Council, July 2012]ATTACKRomney’s Plan Hurts The Middle ClassROMNEY PROPOSED $5 TRILLION IN NEW TAX CUTS WHICH WOULD SHOWER MILLIONAIRES AND BILLIONAIRES WITH EVEN MORE BENEFITS WHILE RAISING TAXES ON THE MIDDLE CLASS?Center On Budget And Policy Priorities: Romney’s New Tax Cuts Would Cost $4.9 Trillion Over A Decade, On Top Of The Cost Of Extending The Bush Tax Cuts. “The Tax Policy Center estimates that the Romney tax plan would lose about $480 billion in tax revenue in calendar year 2015, beyond the revenues losses inherent in maintaining current policy (such as continuing all of the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts).? Over the 2014-2022 period, that implies a total reduction in revenues of about $4.9 trillion, relative to current tax policy.” [Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 5/21/12]??Reuters Headline: “Romney Tax Plan Helps Rich, Hurts Middle Class-Study.” [Reuters, 8/1/12]?Boston Globe Headline: “Mitt Romney’s Tax Plan Would Offer Big Cuts To Millionaires, Raise Taxes On Middle Class, Brookings Analysts Say.” [Boston Globe, 8/1/12]Washington Post Editorial: The Tax Policy Center Found That Under The Romney Plan “Even If Every Loophole For The Top Brackets Were Closed, There Wouldn’t Be Enough Revenue. The Middle Class Would Have To Pay More.” “The Tax Policy Center (TPC), a joint venture of the Urban Institute and the Brookings Institution, examined Mr. Romney’s claim and found that, even if every loophole for the top brackets were closed, there wouldn’t be enough revenue. The middle class would have to pay more.” [Editorial, Washington Post, 8/21/12]ROMNEY’S TAX PLAN WOULD GIVE MULTI-MILLIONAIRES A $250,000 TAX CUT ON THE BACKS THE MIDDLE CLASS – MIDDLE CLASS FAMILIES WITH KIDS WOULD SEE AN AVERAGE TAX INCREASE OF $2,000 If Romney’s Tax Plan Was Paid For, Families With Kids Who Make Less Than $200,000 Would See An Average Tax Increase Of $2,041. [Tax Policy Center, On The Distributional Effects Of Base-Broadening Income Tax Reform, p. 18, 8/1/12]If Romney’s Tax Plan Was Paid For, The Top 0.1% Would See An Average Tax Cut Of $246,652. [Tax Policy Center, On The Distributional Effects Of Base-Broadening Income Tax Reform, p. 19, 8/1/12]Under Romney, The Middle Class Paid Higher Taxes And Fees In MassachusettsROMNEY RAISED TAXES AND FEES BY $750 MILLION ANNUALLY ON MASSACHUSETTS' MIDDLE CLASS FAMILIES AND BUSINESSES Romney: “We Raised Fees On All Sorts Of Things In Massachusetts.”?ROMNEY: “We raised fees on all sorts of things in Massachusetts. Fees hadn’t been touched, in some cases, for decades, and we said, look, we’re going to raise the fees… we’re not going to raise the fees on things that are broad based like driver’s licenses and license plates because everybody gets hit with that. But on those things that are done by a minority of people and where the state provides a service, we did raise fees, yeah.” [Howie Carr, 12/21/11]Romney’s Campaign “States Incorrectly That He Did Not Raise Taxes As Governor.” “A Romney response ad released Friday states incorrectly that he did not raise taxes as governor.” [Los Angeles Times, 6/9/12]Washington Post?Fact Checker: “The Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation Estimated That The Former Governor Raised An Extra $750 Million Per Year Through Fees And Loophole Closures.”?[Washington Post, Fact Checker,?6/12/12]National Conference of State Legislatures: Massachusetts Imposed More Fee Hikes Than Any Other State in the Nation In 2003. [Congress Daily, 8/28/03]Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation: Fee And Tax Increases In Romney’s First Budget “Will Surely Hit Taxpayers’ Pocketbooks As Hard As Any Tax Increase And, Many Would Argue, Less Fairly As Well.” [Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation 8/11/2003]Cato Institute On Romney’s Claims He Stood By A No-New-Taxes Pledge As Governor: “Mostly A Myth.” [Cato Institute’s Fiscal Policy Report Card on America’s Governors: 2006, 10/24/06]Club For Growth: Romney’s “Fee Hikes And ‘Loophole’ Closures Are Troubling.” [AP, 8/28/07]Under Romney, Massachusetts’ Tax Burden Increased 6.25%. According to the Tax Foundation, Massachusetts’ tax burden in 2002 was 9.6%. When Romney left office, the burden had risen to 10.2%, which was a 6.25% change under Romney. Tax burden compares the total state and local per capita taxes paid against the per capita income. [Tax Foundation – Massachusetts' State and Local Tax Burden 1977-2009, accessed 3/2/12]Under Romney, The “Total State And Local Per Capita Taxes Paid” Rose By $1,227 Which Was A 30.4% Increase. According to the Tax Foundation, Massachusetts’ total state and local taxes paid per capita was $ $4,038 in 2002. In 2006, Massachusetts’ total state and local taxes paid per capita was $ $5,265. [Tax Foundation – Massachusetts' State and Local Tax Burden 1977-2009, accessed 3/2/12]LEADERSHIPPRO-POTUSPresident Obama Has Been Praised For His Leadership Across IssuesPRESIDENT OBAMA HAS BEEN PRAISED FOR HIS LEADERSHIP ON A VARIETY OF ISSUES, INCLUDING THE ECONOMY, DEFICIT REDUCTION, AND WOMEN’S RIGHTSPRESIDENT OBAMA’S RECOVERY ACT WAS INSTRUMENTAL IN PREVENTING A SECOND GREAT DEPRESSIONMichael Grunwald: The President “Dictated The Principles Of The Recovery Act And Most of Its Specific Content.” “But while Congress wrote the bill, the president dictated its principles and most of its specific content. Its major initiatives on tax cuts, energy, education, health care and the economy came straight out of his campaign agenda. The final bill emerged from a list of spending items drafted by the White House.” [Michael Grunwald Op-Ed, Washington Post, 8/10/12]USA Today: “Eighteen Months Later, The Consensus Among Economists Is That The Stimulus Worked In Staving Off A Rerun Of The 1930s.” “Liberal?economists such as?New York?Times?columnist?Paul Krugman?complained that the massive program should have been larger and was marred by the inclusion of excessive tax cuts that would have a less-immediate impact on job creation. Republicans derided the legislation as wasteful spending that would add to ballooning government debt. Eighteen months later, the consensus among economists is that the stimulus worked in staving off a rerun of the 1930s.” ?[USA Today, 8/30/2010]New York Times Editorial: “In 2009, Thanks In Large Part To The Obama Stimulus, The Rise In Poverty Was Halted – A Significant Accomplishment At A Time Of Worsening Unemployment.” “In 2009, thanks in large part to the Obama stimulus, the rise in poverty was halted -- a significant accomplishment at a time of worsening unemployment. When data for 2010 are released in the fall, poverty is expected to have stayed in check because the stimulus, including aid to states and bolstered unemployment benefits, was still in effect last year.” [Editorial, New York Times, 6/25/11] PRESIDENT OBAMA HAS BEEN WIDELY ENDORSED AS A LEADER WHO HAS CREATED JOBS AND WILL STAND UP FOR WORKING FAMILIESFebruary 2012: The Machinists Union Endorsed President Obama For Re-Election, Saying That “We’re Convinced The Job Growth We’re Now Seeing… Is A Direct Result Of President Obama’s Policies And Leadership And We Want That Growth To Continue.” “In a unanimous vote, the Machinists Non-Partisan Political League (MNPL) endorsed the reelection of President Barack Obama. ‘Jobs are the central issue of this campaign, and only President Obama has a plan that would put millions of Americans and thousands of Machinists back to work,’ said IAM International President Tom Buffenbarger. ‘We’re convinced the job growth we're now seeing, particularly in the critical manufacturing sector, is a direct result of President Obama's policies and leadership and we want that growth to continue.’” [Machinists Union press release, 2/24/12]Building And Trades Union President McGarvey: “Thank God We Had The Steady Hand Of Barack Obama At The Helm When Not Just Our Nation, But The Entire Globe, Was On The Verge Of Economic Collapse.” “And, in addition to conveying our story to the leaders in corporate America and in our own communities, there is another important story that we need to tell.? And we need to tell it RIGHT NOW. And that is the rightful story of President Obama's first term in office. We all know what's coming.? We've seen it before.? Can you say, ‘Swift Boat?’ But, what I know is this: Thank God we had the steady hand of Barack Obama at the helm when not just our nation, but the entire globe, was on the verge of economic collapse.” [Speech by Building and Construction Trades department, AFL-CIO President Sean McGarvey, 4/30/12]Small Business And Entrepreneurship Council President And CEO Karen Kerrigan: “President Obama’s Steadfast Leadership And Support Of The JOBS Act Was Central To This Important Victory For Small Businesses.” [Small Business and Entrepreneurship Council, 4/5/12]ERSKINE BOWLES, ONE OF THE CHAIRS OF THE BIPARTISAN FISCAL COMMISSION, PRAISED PRESIDENT OBAMA’S BOLD LEADERSHIP ON DEFICIT REDUCTIONErskine Bowles: “It Was Apparent To Me That The President Does Support The General Framework Of The ‘Simpson-Bowles Plan,’ And He Is Willing To Do His Part To Put Our Fiscal House In Order.” “After a long meeting with Mr. Obama earlier this month, I'm confident that he supports deficit reduction that is generally in line with the recommendations of the bipartisan debt commission. That does not mean that he supports every single thing we recommended, nor do I or any other commissioner who voted yes on the report we issued. But it was apparent to me that the president does support the general framework of the ‘Simpson-Bowles Plan,’ and he is willing to do his part to put our fiscal house in order.” [Erskine Bowles Op-Ed, Wall Street Journal, 3/29/12]Erskine Bowles: “Through It All, The President Has Boldly Told What I Believe To Be The Central Truth of Debt Reduction.” “Through it all, the president has boldly told what I believe to be the central truth of debt reduction: America will only turn the corner on the debt if both sides come out of their corners to support a balanced plan that gets rid of unnecessary tax expenditures, and keeps the promise of Social Security and Medicare by putting entitlements on a sustainable path for the long haul.” [Erskine Bowles Op-Ed, Wall Street Journal, 3/29/12]PRESIDENT OBAMA’S LEADERSHIP SAVED THE AUTO INDUSTRYUAW President Bob King: President Obama “Saved Our Jobs…There Would Not Be An American Auto Industry Today Without Obama’s Leadership.” “UAW President Bob King was cautious today about the status of discussions with the Detroit Three… ‘He saved our jobs,’ King said in reference to federal aid to GM and Chrysler in 2009. ‘Our members know there would not be an American auto industry today without Obama's leadership.’” [Knight Ridder, 9/4/11]General Motors CEO Dan Akerson: President Obama Did A “Good Job” With The Auto Rescue, And Without It, “You Could Have Written Off This Company, This Industry, And This Country.” “REYNOLDS: Did President Obama save General Motors? AKERSON: Without the money, without the funding, it would have been very -- very problematic. So at the risk of alienating a whole lot of potential customers, I would say the Obama administration did a good job. REYNOLDS (voice over): Republican presidential hopeful Mitt Romney and other critics have argued the bailout was unnecessary, and that the regular bankruptcy process would have made GM and Chrysler stronger companies. (on camera): Would that have happened? AKERSON: Not in my opinion, and it would have been in bankruptcy for years, and I think you could have written off this company, this industry, and this country.” [CBS Evening News, 2/16/12]Cleveland Plain Dealer Editorial: “Obama Can Make A Strong Case That The Auto Industry Remains Afloat And Surprisingly Vital Because Of His Administration’s Tough Love.” “When President Barack Obama visits Chrysler Group LLC's Toledo assembly plant on Friday, he won't be looking to buy a new Jeep Wrangler. Instead, he'll be hoping to wrangle votes in Ohio, Michigan and throughout the Midwest, where the auto industry remains a cornerstone of the economy. Obama can make a strong case that the industry remains afloat and surprisingly vital because of his administration's tough love.” [Cleveland Plain Dealer Editorial, 6/2/11]PRESIDENT OBAMA HAS SHOWN LEADERSHIP IN STANDING UP FOR WOMEN’S RIGHTSNational Organization For Women: “President Obama Has Repeatedly Stood Up For Women’s Rights.” “Throughout the past four years President Obama has listened to our concerns and repeatedly stood up for women's rights against a right-wing juggernaut bent on undermining our access to reproductive health care, our economic security and even our safety from intimate partner violence and sexual assault.” [National Organization for Women, 7/11/12]Lilly Ledbetter: President Obama’s Leadership Means That Women “Will Never Again Feel Helpless When They Don’t Get An Equal Day’s Pay For An Equal Day’s Work.” “But in recognizing what's right and fair,?President Obama's leadership?has given me a much richer reward: knowing that my daughter, my granddaughter and every other woman in America will never again feel helpless when they don't get an equal day's pay for an equal day's work.” [Lilly Ledbetter Op-Ed, Charlotte Observer, 1/29/12]President Obama’s Litany Of AccomplishmentsAS A RESULT OF PRESIDENT OBAMA’S FAITH IN AMERICAN AUTO WORKERS, THE AMERICAN AUTO INDUSTRY IS BACK ON ITS FEET, ADDING SHIFTS AND CREATING NEARLY A QUARTER OF A MILLION AMERICAN JOBSCenter For Automotive Research: The Auto Industry Rescue Saved Over 1.1 Million Jobs In 2009. According to a report on the? difference between orderly bankruptcy proceedings assisted by government-provided debtor-in-possession financing versus an uncontrolled bankruptcy for American automakers, the Center for Automotive Research estimates that emergency loans to American automakers saved 1.14 million jobs in 2009. [Center for Automotive Research Report, 11/7/10]SINCE APRIL 2009 WHEN PRESIDENT OBAMA’S HOUSING POLICIES BEGAN TO TAKE EFFECT THERE HAVE BEEN OVER 5 MILLION LOAN MODIFICATIONS—FAR OUTPACING FORECLOSURES OVER THE SAME PERIODPresident Obama’s Efforts Have Helped More Than 5 Million Americans Stay In Their Homes And Fight Foreclosure Through Permanent Mortgage Modification. According to the May 2012 National Housing Scorecard, over 1 million HAMP permanent modifications, more than 1.4 million FHA loss mitigation interventions, and 2.98 million HOPE Now modifications have been started between April 2009 and May 2012. Cumulatively, this means that President Obama’s initiatives have worked to spur more than 5 million permanent mortgage modifications have been started through the last three years. [National Housing Scorecard, 8/3/12]Since April 2009, Mortgage Modifications Have Outpaced Foreclosures. Since April 1, 2009, 5.4 million mortgage modifications have been completed – more than the 2.9 million cumulative foreclosures completed in the same time period. [National Housing Scorecard, 8/3/12]THE RECOVERY ACT HELPED AVERT A SECOND GREAT DEPRESSIONUSA Today: “Eighteen Months Later, The Consensus Among Economists Is That The Stimulus Worked In Staving Off A Rerun Of The 1930s.” “Liberal?economists such as?New York?Times?columnist?Paul Krugman?complained that the massive program should have been larger and was marred by the inclusion of excessive tax cuts that would have a less-immediate impact on job creation. Republicans derided the legislation as wasteful spending that would add to ballooning government debt. Eighteen months later, the consensus among economists is that the stimulus worked in staving off a rerun of the 1930s.” ?[USA Today, 8/30/2010]PRESIDENT OBAMA HAS FOUGHT TO PUT HIGHER EDUCATION WITHIN REACH FOR ALL AMERICANS AND OFFERED TAX RELIEF TO STUDENTS AND FAMILIES PAYING FOR TUITIONPresident Obama Established The American Opportunity Tax Credit, Which Provides Up To $10,000 For Up To Four Years In Tuition Relief. “The President created the American Opportunity Tax Credit (AOTC) as part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, which he signed into law in February 2009. The AOTC replaces the Hope Scholarship credit for Tax Years 2009 and 2010, increasing the benefits for nearly all Hope credit recipients and many other students by providing a maximum benefit up to $2,500 per student – 100 percent of their first $2,000 in tuition and 25 percent of the next $2,000 –expanding the income range over which taxpayers can claim a credit, and making the credit partially refundable. 4.5 Million Students and Families Received a Tax Refund from the AOTC in 2009 With an Average Value of $800, which they would not have been eligible for in 2008.” [Department of the Treasury, 10/12/10]PRESIDENT OBAMA PREVENTED INTEREST RATES FROM DOUBLING FOR NEW STUDENT LOANS AND ELIMINATED BANK MIDDLEMEN ON LOANS TO DOUBLE FUNDING FOR PELL GRANTSPresident Obama Signed Legislation That Stops Interest Rates From Doubling For An Estimated 7.4 Million Students Expected To Get New Loans This Year.“It also keeps interest rates of 3.4 percent for subsidized Stafford loans for undergraduates. If Congress hadn't acted, the rate would have doubled beginning July 1 for an estimated 7.4 million students expected to get new loans this year, adding an extra $1,000 to the average cost of each loan.” [The Associated Press, 07/06/12]President Obama Doubled Funding For Pell Grants, Raising The Maximum Award And Increasing The Number Of Recipients To Nearly 10 Million Students. “Thanks in part to these new investments, President Obama has roughly doubled funding for the need-based Pell Grant program, raising the maximum award from $4,731 in fiscal year 2008 to an estimated $5,635 for fiscal year 2013 and increasing the number of recipients by approximately 50 percent to nearly 10 million students.” [Department of Education Budget Summary, Accessed 04/15/12]THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION HAS MADE EDUCATION A NATIONAL PRIORITY WITH RACE TO THE TOP, THE LARGEST COMPETITIVE INVESTMENT IN SCHOOL REFORM IN THE NATION’S HISTORYPresident Obama's Race To The Top Is The Largest-Ever Federal Competitive Investment In School Reform. “The $4.35 billion Race to the Top Fund is the largest-ever federal competitive investment in school reform.” [Department of Education Fact Sheet, 12/2009]PRESIDENT OBAMA SIGNED THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT INTO LAW TO VASTLY EXPAND HEALTH CARE ACCESS AND PROVIDE THE MIDDLE CLASS WITH THE SECURITY OF AFFORDABLE HEALTH INSURANCE On March 23, 2010, President Obama Signed The Affordable Care Act Into Law, Ensuring Health Care Access and Affordability For Millions Of Americans. “We are a nation that faces its challenges and accepts its responsibilities.? We are a nation that does what is hard.? What is necessary.? What is right.? Here, in this country, we shape our own destiny.? That is what we do.? That is who we are.? That is what makes us the United States of America.?And we have now just enshrined, as soon as I sign this bill, the core principle that everybody should have some basic security when it comes to their health care.” – [Remarks by the President at the signing of the Affordable Care Act, 03/23/10]PRESIDENT OBAMA HAS BEEN CLEAR ABOUT HIS PLANS TO END THE WAR IN IRAQ FROM THE BEGINNING AND WORKED WITH THE COMMANDERS ON THE GROUND TO BRING THE WAR TO A RESPONSIBLE ENDPresident Obama Promised To End Combat Operations In Iraq By August 31, 2010. “President Obama said Friday he plans to withdraw most U.S. troops from Iraq by the end of August 2010…’Let me say this as plainly as I can: By August 31, 2010, our combat mission in Iraq will end,’ Obama said in a speech at Camp Lejeune, North Carolina.” [CNN, 02/27/09]On December 18, 2011, The Last Convoy Of US Troops Crossed The Border Out Of Iraq, Officially Ending The War In Iraq. “The last convoy of American troops drove into Kuwait on Sunday morning, punctuating the end of the nearly nine-year war in?Iraq.” [New York Times, 12/18/11]PRESIDENT OBAMA MADE THE CAPTURE OR KILLING OF OSAMA BIN LADEN A PRIORITY AND TOOK COURAGEOUS STEPS TO GET THE JOB DONE.On May 1, 2011, President Obama Announced An Operation Into Pakistan Had Successfully Killed Osama Bin Laden. “In a late-night appearance in the East Room of the White House, Mr. Obama declared that “justice has been done” as he disclosed that American military and?C.I.A.?operatives had finally cornered Bin Laden, the leader of?Al Qaeda, who had eluded them for nearly a decade. “ [NYT, 05/01/11]PRESIDENT OBAMA SIGNED THREE FREE TRADE AGREEMENTS, WHICH ARE THE MOST SIGNIFICANT EXPANSION OF TRADE IN NEARLY TWO DECADESPresident Obama Signed Free Trade Agreements With South Korea, Colombia And Panama In The Largest Trade Deal Since 1994, With The Agreements To Support An Estimated 70,000 Jobs.?“President Barack Obama will sign the South Korea, Colombia and Panama free trade agreements on Oct. 21, the White House announced. The accords were approved by Congress last week. The agreement with South Korea is the largest trade deal since 1994 and will widen U.S. export access for everything from cars to farm goods and support about 70,000 jobs, according to the administration.” [Bloomberg,?10/18/11]PRESIDENT OBAMA SIGNED INTO LAW LANDMARK WALL STREET REFORM TO REIN IN THE ABUSE AND EXCESS THAT LED TO THE FINANCIAL CRISISNew York Times: “President Obama Signed A Sweeping Expansion Of Federal Financial Regulation” That “Subjects More Financial Companies To Federal Oversight And Regulates Many Derivatives Contracts While Creating A Consumer Protection Regulator And A Panel To Detect Risks To The Financial System.” “President Obama signed a sweeping expansion of federal financial regulation on Wednesday, signaling perhaps the Democrats’ last major legislative victory before the midterm elections in November, which could recast the Congressional landscape…Still, Democrats and White House officials were euphoric about passage of the legislation, a response to the 2008 financial crisis that tipped the nation into the worst recession since the Great Depression. The law subjects more financial companies to federal oversight and regulates many derivatives contracts while creating a consumer protection regulator and a panel to detect risks to the financial system.” [New York Times, 7/21/10]The Apology Tour Attack: False Then, False NowNUMEROUS FACT CHECKERS AND PRESS OUTLETS HAVE CONFIRMED THAT THIS ATTACK IS CATEGORICALLY FALSEPresident Obama Said America “Will Not Apologize For Our Way Of Life.” “We will not apologize for our way of life, nor will we waver in its defense, and for those who seek to advance their aims by inducing terror and slaughtering innocents, we say to you now that our spirit is stronger and cannot be broken; you cannot outlast us, and we will defeat you.” [President Obama, 1/20/09]Boston Globe: “One Of The Core Tenets Of Romney’s Foreign Policy” That President Obama Had Gone On An Apology Tour Was Found False By Independent Fact-Checkers. “The clash highlights one of the core tenets of Romney’s foreign policy: that Obama has not been forceful enough and has led what Romney has called ‘Obama’s American Apology Tour.’ Independent fact-checking of the notion of an Obama ‘apology tour’ has found it to be false.” [Boston Globe, 9/13/12]? Tampa Bay Times Politifact Has Given The Claim President Obama Went On An “Apology Tour” A “Pants On Fire” Rating. ?“We found not a single, full-throated apology in the bunch. And on the new angle Romney has added -- that the trips were intended to offer the president a forum to apologize to other countries -- we think it’s a ridiculous charge. There’s a clear difference between changing policies and apologizing, and Obama didn’t do the latter.” [Tampa Bay Times, Politifact, 09/22/11]Washington Post Fact Check: Romney’s “Claim That Obama Repeatedly Has Apologized For The United States Is Not Borne Out By The Facts.” “The claim that Obama repeatedly has apologized for the United States is not borne out by the facts, especially if his full quotes are viewed in context … Note to GOP speechwriters and campaign ad makers: The apology tour never happened.” [Washington Post Fact Checker, 2/22/11]New York Times: President Obama Has Offered “A Robust Defense Of American Policies.” “It is true that early in his term, Mr. Obama promised to abandon policies of his predecessor, George W. Bush, on issues like the military prison in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, and a foreign policy in Iraq and elsewhere that Mr. Obama described as unilateral. But it is hard to find evidence that Mr. Obama ever?said he was “sorry” for the United States. And in some speeches, notably?after winning the Nobel Peace Prize, Mr. Obama offered a robust defense of American policies, including the war in Afghanistan.” [New York Times, 09/22/11]: “Then, As Now, Romney’s Claim Of Obama ‘Apologies’ Falls Flat.” “Romney’s claims about the administration ‘apologizing for American values’ fits an ongoing theme of his campaign: accusing Obama of beginning his presidency on an ‘apology tour’ in foreign countries. In fact, that meme informed the title of Romney’s book ‘No Apology.’ We looked into the Obama speeches that Romney cited as evidence and concluded that nowhere did we see that the president ‘apologized’ for America. In some speeches, Obama was drawing a distinction between his policies and those of his predecessor, George W. Bush. In other instances, Obama appeared to be employing a bit of diplomacy, criticizing past actions of both the U.S. and the host nation, and calling for the two sides to move forward. Then, as now, Romney’s claim of Obama ‘apologies’ falls flat.” [, 9/12/12]: Romney’s Claim The Obama Administration Issued “An Apology For American Values” After U.S. Embassies Were Attacked Was “Not True.” Mitt Romney claims the Obama administration issued an ‘apology for American values’ after U.S. embassies were attacked. Not true. Romney refers to a statement issued?before?mobs attacked either in Egypt or Libya, and faults U.S. diplomats for failing to condemn actions that hadn’t yet happened. Furthermore, the word ‘sorry’ or ‘apologize’ doesn’t appear in the statement. Under the headline, ‘U.S. Embassy Condemns Religious Incitement,’ the embassy in Cairo said, ‘Respect for religious beliefs is a cornerstone of American democracy.’ [, 9/12/12]President Obama Has Always Believed That Change Happens Because Of The American PeoplePRESIDENT OBAMA HAS REPEATEDLY NOTED THAT CHANGE HAPPENS FROM OUTSIDE WASHINGTONAugust 2008: Obama Said “Change Comes To Washington. Change Happens Because The American People Demand It.”? You have shown what history teaches us - that at defining moments like this one, the change we need doesn't come from Washington. Change comes to Washington. Change happens because the American people demand it - because they rise up and insist on new ideas and new leadership, a new politics for a new time. [Obama 2008 Democratic National Convention remarks, 8/28/08]May 2011: The President Argued That “We’ve Got To Encourage The Kind Of Change That’s Led Not By Politicians, Not By Washington, D.C., But … By Ordinary People Standing Up And Demanding A Better Future.” “So ever since I became President, my administration has been working hard to make sure that we build on the progress that’s taking place in schools like this.? We’ve got to encourage the kind of change that’s led not by politicians, not by Washington, D.C., but by teachers and principals and parents, and entire communities; by ordinary people standing up and demanding a better future for their children.” [Remarks by the President, 5/16/11]September 2011: In Pushing For His American Jobs Act, President Obama Asked “Every American Who Agrees To Lift Your Voice:? Tell The People Who Are Gathered Here Tonight That You Want Action Now.” “Regardless of the arguments we’ve had in the past, regardless of the arguments we will have in the future, this plan is the right thing to do right now.? You should pass it. And I intend to take that message to every corner of this country. And I ask -- I ask every American who agrees to lift your voice:? Tell the people who are gathered here tonight that you want action now.? Tell Washington that doing nothing is not an option.? Remind us that if we act as one nation and one people, we have it within our power to meet this challenge.” [Address by the President to a Joint Session of Congress, 9/8/11]April 2012: After Listing A Series Of Accomplishments, The President Told Supporters “None Of This Change Would Have Happened If It Weren’t For You,” But That There Was “A Lot More Work To Do.” “None of this change would have happened if it weren’t for you.? And now we’ve got more work to do.? We’ve got a lot more work to do.” [Remarks by the President at a Campaign Event, 4/18/12]July 2012: In His Weekly Address, President Obama Praised The Passage Of A College Affordability Bill, Thanking “Every American Who Took Time To Sit Down And Write A Letter, Type Out An E-Mail, Make A Phone Call Or Send A Tweet” Saying That “I Promise You – Your Voice Made All The Difference.” “Finally, I want to thank every American who took the time to sit down and write a letter, type out an e-mail, make a phone call or send a tweet hoping your voice would make a difference.? I promise you – your voice made all the difference.? And as long as I have the privilege of being your President, your voice will be heard in the White House.” [WEEKLY ADDRESS: Pushing Congress to Create Jobs, Keep College in Reach for Middle Class, 7/7/12]August 2012: Speaking About Accomplishments Over His Term, President Obama Said “I Helped A Little Bit. But This Change Was Because You Put In The Effort. You Put In The Time. You Had Confidence In America's Future.”? ‘It was young people like you who said we can end this war in Iraq. And today the war is over. More troops are at home with their families. They're earning their education through the Post-9/11 GI Bill. They're out there starting new businesses. And nobody will ever again have to hide who they love in order to serve the country that they love, because we ended "don't ask, don't tell" once and for all. You made that change. You made that happen. Your voice made a difference. AUDIENCE MEMBER: You did! AUDIENCE MEMBER: With your help! THE PRESIDENT: I helped a little bit. But this change was because you put in the effort. You put in the time. You had confidence in America's future.” [Remarks By The President At A Campaign Event, 8/28/12]ATTACKRomney: Partisan Republican For WashingtonROMNEY SAID HE DIDN’T WANT CONGRESS TO TAKE ACTION BEFORE INAUGURATION DAY 2013 Wall Street Journal:“Romney Said In A Recent Interview With Time Magazine That He Hopes The Lame-Duck Congress Doesn't Enact Long-Term Legislation On The Looming Fiscal Issues.”? “Mr. Romney said in a recent interview with Time magazine that he hopes the lame-duck Congress doesn't enact long-term legislation on the looming fiscal issues if he is elected, but instead gives him time to make his own proposals.” [Wall Street Journal, 6/13/12]Romney Said That, If Elected, He Would Not Want A Lame-Duck Congress Taking Action Before He Was Sworn In To Address Looming Defense Cuts. Halperin: “So, if you’re elected, you’ll be in office in eight months. There’s the so-called fiscal cliff coming. Has a lot of things that I’m pretty sure you’re opposed to: major defense cuts, you’d actually like to see an increase in defense spending. The kind of sharp drop in spending, in other areas and automatic cuts, as well as tax increases in a lot of ways that would be a real drag on the economy. Everybody agrees that — CBO said yesterday would send the country into recession. So, again, in the real world people understand what President Romney would be like. Election comes in November, you win. Would you like to see the incumbent President and Congress deal with these issues during the lame-duck session?” Romney: “Of course not.” Halperin: “You’d like them to defer to you?” Romney: “Absolutely. I would like to be able to deal with these issues on a structural basis, on a permanent basis as opposed to a stopgap effort that would require unraveling and reevaluation. My hope is to be able to come into office with people on both sides of the aisle who are cognizant of the critical nature of what America faces fiscally, what the people of America are facing employment wise, the failure in our economy that’s hurting so many people and that we’ll see Republicans and Democrats say, OK, what kind of tax proposals will encourage economic growth? What kind of regulatory reform will encourage economic growth? Energy polices, educations policies and the like. I think we can do that, but my preference would be to have the opportunity to do that after the election as opposed to have the President in a lame-duck session try and create a solution that may not be in keeping with the new administration.” [Mark Halperin interview with Mitt Romney, Time, 5/23/12]REPUBLICANS IN CONGRESS HAVE DECIDED TO STALL LEGISLATION IN AN EFFORT TO TRY TO HELP ROMNEY GET ELECTEDWall Street Journal Headline: “Republicans See Advantages In Go-Slow Approach On Bills” [Wall Street Journal, 6/13/12]Republican Rep. Scott Garrett Argued That There Wasn’t An “Upside” But Rather It Would “Tie Romney’s Hands” If They Passed Needed Legislation Before The Election. “Rep. Peter King (R., N.Y.) agreed that Republican prospects are improving, but he said there should be no foot-dragging on needed legislation. ‘We've got to keep working,’ he said. ‘We can't coast.’ But some Republicans say they are wary of cutting deals that would curb the options of more-conservative leadership that could be in place next year. ‘Where is the upside?’ said Rep. Scott Garrett (R., N.J.), a senior member of the House Budget Committee. ‘You tie Romney's hands. If we get a good majority in the Senate and win the White House, we will be on a very strong platform to do the things we need to do.’” [Wall Street Journal, 6/13/12]House And Senate Republican Leaders Have Said They Want To Extend The Current Tax Rates For One Year Rather Than Rewrite Policy For The Looming Debt Limit Deadline With Military And Domestic Spending Cuts Are Slated To Take Effect. “On Dec. 31, an array of Bush-era tax cuts expires. On Jan. 2, about $110 billion in military and domestic spending cuts are slated to take effect. Congress may need to increase the federal debt limit by early January of next year. But increasingly, there are signs that those issues won't be settled in the lame-duck Congress. House and Senate GOP leaders have already said they want to extend current tax rates for one year rather than scramble to rewrite policy before Jan. 1.” [Wall Street Journal, 6/13/12]ROMNEY’S CAMPAIGN TOOK A LEAD ROLE IN STOKING PARTISAN, TIME-WASTING FIGHTS IN CONGRESS With “Buy-In From Mitt Romney’s Campaign” House Republicans Launch An Agenda To “Put President Barack Obama And Democratic Candidates On The Defensive” Including Attack Ads And Robocalls Surrounding Their Votes. “As the spotlight shifts unmistakably from Washington to the campaign trail, House Republicans have planned a series of hot-button votes over the next four weeks to contrast the party’s agenda with that of Democrats and put President Barack Obama and Democratic candidates on the defensive. Very little — if any — of it will become law. The main goal is to boost the party’s prospects on Election Day. The carefully planned effort, detailed by Republicans inside and outside the Capitol, has buy-in from Mitt Romney’s campaign, aides say. Outside political groups, which by law cannot coordinate with lawmakers, intend to pounce on the upcoming votes with advertising, robocalls and mailings. House Republicans will kick off the effort this week with another quixotic attempt to repeal Obama’s health care law. Next week, they will turn to defense, passing the Defense Department’s funding bill while trying to put the Obama administration on record as having no plan to avoid deep cuts to the Pentagon next year.” [Politico, 7/8/12]Politico: “Romney’s Presidential Campaign Is Very Much In Tune With The GOP’s Plans” To Attack Democrats Through Hot-Button Votes With Romney Senior Advisors Mike Leavitt And Jim Talent In Close Contact With House Republicans. ?Politico wrote of an agenda by House Republicans, with buy-in from Romney’s campaign, to put forward a “series of hot-button votes” followed by attack ads, robocalls and mailings from outside political groups in an effort to help the election chances of Republicans: “Romney’s presidential campaign is very much in tune with the GOP’s plans. Mike Leavitt, who is heading Romney’s transition, has been in close contact with House Republicans on planning the health care repeal vote. And ahead of the defense push, former Missouri Sen. Jim Talent, a top Romney adviser, will meet this week with lawmakers from big defense states such as Ohio, Florida, Virginia and Texas, according to sources.” [Politico, 7/8/12]ROMNEY AND REPUBLICANS – LEAD BY PAUL RYAN – USE THE DEFENSE BUDGET FOR PARTISAN ELECTION YEAR ATTACKS? House Republicans – With Buy-In From Romney – Will Use The Defense Budget To Attack President Obama. Politico wrote of an agenda by House Republicans, with buy-in from Romney’s campaign, to put forward a “series of hot-button votes” followed by attack ads, robocalls and mailings from outside political groups in an effort to help the election chances of Republicans: “House Republicans will kick off the effort this week with another quixotic attempt to repeal Obama’s health care law. Next week, they will turn to defense, passing the Defense Department’s funding bill while trying to put the Obama administration on record as having no plan to avoid deep cuts to the Pentagon next year.” [Politico, 7/8/12]GROVER NORQUIST: ROMNEY WILL RUBBERSTAMP A CONSERVATIVE AGENDAHeadline: “Norquist: Romney Will Do As Told.” [David Frum, Daily Beast, 2/13/12]Grover Norquist On Conservatives And Romney: “We Just Want A Guy To Sign The Bills.” “Some Republicans are making the best of it by noting that the party’s conservative base will keep Romney’s feet to the fire and asserting that he’s largely a vessel. ‘This is not Taft-Eisenhower or Goldwater-Rockefeller,’ said anti-tax leader Grover Norquist, who said he feels better now about winning than he did a month ago. ‘We’re not nominating a candidate to tell the party what direction to go. All of them ran as Reagan Republicans. We know what we’re doing and who we are — we just want a guy to sign the bills.’ Put simply, ‘We’re electing a coach of a team that knows the plays,’ Norquist said.” [Politico, 4/20/12; emphasis added]Grover Norquist Admitted Conservatives “See Romney As Essentially A Weak And Passive President Who Will Concede Leadership To Congressional Conservatives” – He Claimed, “We Don't Need A President To Tell Us In What Direction To Go… We Just Need A President To Sign This Stuff.” “The most quoted speech at CPAC this year was Mitt Romney's, but my vote for the most significant goes to Grover Norquist's. In his charmingly blunt way, Norquist articulated out loud a case for Mitt Romney that you hear only whispered by other major conservative leaders. They have reconciled themselves to a Romney candidacy because they see Romney as essentially a weak and passive president who will concede leadership to congressional conservatives: ‘All we have to do is replace Obama. ... We are not auditioning for fearless leader. We don't need a president to tell us in what direction to go. We know what direction to go. We want the Ryan budget. ... We just need a president to sign this stuff. We don't need someone to think it up or design it. The leadership now for the modern conservative movement for the next 20 years will be coming out of the House and the Senate.’” [David Frum, Daily Beast, 2/13/12]Ryan: Relished In Partisan FightsRYAN HASN’T BEEN THE BIPARTISAN HE AND ROMNEY CLAIMSRomney: Ryan “Has Become The Intellectual Leader” Of The Republican Party. ROMNEY: “With energy and vision, Paul Ryan has become an intellectual leader of the Republican Party. He understands the fiscal challenges facing America: our exploding deficits and crushing debt – and the fiscal catastrophe that awaits us if we don’t change course.” [Romney Bus Tour Rally, Norfolk, Virginia, 8/11/12]Bloomberg: Ryan’s Record “Shows Little Evidence That Ryan Has Teamed With Democrats To Pass Bipartisan Measures Into Law.” [Bloomberg, 8/17/12]Ryan Voted With His Party At Least 90 Percent Of The Time Each Year. During his career in Congress, Ryan has voted at least 90 percent of the time each year with his party, rising as high as 97 percent of the time in 2008 and 2009. [Congressional Quarterly Vote Study]New York Times: “Not A Single Democrat Voted” For Ryan’s 2012 Fiscal Blueprint – Some Republicans Also Voted Against It. “ [New York Times, 4/15/11]Ryan Noted That His Proposal Was Based On One He Drafted With Alice Rivlin, A Democratic Budget Hawk – But Rivlin Said Ryan’s Budget “Isn’t A Bipartisan Proposal.” “Ryan noted that his plan was based on one he drafted with Alice Rivlin, the doyenne of Democratic budget hawks. Only one problem with that claim: Rivlin doesn’t like Ryan’s new proposal. ‘This budget plan is quite different from anything I would recommend,’ she told me Wednesday. Rivlin still likes the idea of adding more private insurance options to Medicare. But she wants to keep the fee-for-service plan too and give seniors their choice. And she thinks Ryan’s plan is based on an unrealistically low estimate of future healthcare costs, meaning the subsidies would end up too low unless Congress intervened to increase them -- wiping out the savings that the plan was intended to produce. … Ryan’s budget, she said, ‘isn’t a bipartisan proposal. I don’t think anybody on the Democratic side could vote for it. But it’s an opening bid in a negotiation.’” [Doyle McManus, Los Angeles Times, 4/7/11]RYAN VOTED AGAINST AND URGED HOUSE REPUBLICANS TO REJECT THE BIPARTISAN SIMPSON-BOWLES DEBT COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONSWashington Post Editorial: Ryan’s Account Of Debt Commission Omitted That Ryan Himself “Was Unwilling To Follow The Brave Lead Of The Republican Senators On The Panel Who Supported Its ‘Urgent’ Recommendations.” “Mr. Ryan skewered the president in his speech for creating and then walking away from a bipartisan debt commission that, he said, ‘came back with an urgent report.’ We’ve expressed similar frustrations, but omitted from Mr. Ryan’s self-serving rendition was the uncomfortable fact that Mr. Ryan served on that very commission but was unwilling to follow the brave lead of the Republican senators on the panel who supported its ‘urgent’ recommendations. Will the Romney-Ryan ticket endorse them now?” [Washington Post, Editorial, 8/29/12]ON OBAMA’S INAUGURATION DAY, RYAN AND OTHER HIGH-PROFILE REPUBLICANS ATTENDED A DINNER WHERE THEY STRATEGIZED DIFFERENT METHODS OF ALIENATING DEMOCRATS AND REGAINING POWER1/20/09: On The Eve Of Obama’s Inauguration, Communications Specialist Frank Luntz Arranged A Dinner With Ryan, Other House And Senate Republicans, And A Weekly Standard Journalist. “On such a night, it was a comfort to suffer among friends. Most of them—Eric Cantor, Kevin McCarthy, Paul Ryan, Pete Sessions, Jeb Hensarling, Pete Hoekstra, and Dan Lungren—were members of the U.S. House of Representatives. Five served in the Senate: Jim DeMint, Jon Kyl, Tom Coburn, John Ensign, and Bob Corker. The other three invitees were conservative journalist Fred Barnes of the Weekly Standard, former House Speaker (and future presidential candidate) Newt Gingrich, and communications specialist Frank Luntz. Most of them had attended the inauguration. … Luntz had organized the dinner—telling the invitees, ‘You’ll have nothing to do that night, and right now we don’t matter anyway, so let’s all be irrelevant together.’” [Robert Draper, Do Not Ask What Good We Do, Electronic Version, p. 2, Published 4/24/12]By The End Of The Dinner The Republicans Had Agreed On A Comprehensive Plan That Targeted Geithner, Reaffirmed Continuing Opposition To Obama, And Attacked “Vulnerable Democrats On The Airwaves.” “They parted company almost giddily. The Republicans had agreed on a way forward: Go after Geithner. (And indeed Kyl did, the next day: ‘Would you answer my question rather than dancing around it—please?’) Show united and unyielding opposition to the president’s economic policies. (Eight days later, Minority Whip Cantor would hold the House Republicans to a unanimous No against Obama’s economic stimulus plan.) Begin attacking vulnerable Democrats on the airwaves. (The first National Republican Congressional Committee attack ads would run in less than two months.) Win the spear point of the House in 2010. Jab Obama relentlessly in 2011. Win the White House and the Senate in 2012. ‘You will remember this day,’ Newt Gingrich proclaimed to the others as they said goodbye. ‘You’ll remember this as the day the seeds of 2012 were sown.’” [Robert Draper, Do Not Ask What Good We Do, Electronic Version, p. 4, Published 4/24/12]Romney: Refuses To Take A StandROMNEY REFUSED TO CONDEMN THE BOOING OF A GAY SOLDIER AT A GOP DEBATERomney Responded To The Booing Of A Gay Soldier At A Republican Primary Debate Saying “I Have Not Made It My Practice To Scold The Audience And Say, ‘I Disagree With This Person, I Agree With That Person.’” Asked about a gay soldier being booed at a republican primary debate: “I think we can hear the boos. I would tell you that in these debates there has been a lot of booing and a lot of applause. Cheering and booing. Some of which I don’t agree with. Now I have not made it my practice to scold the audience and say, ‘I disagree with this person, I agree with that person,’ because it goes in a lot of different directions. I don’t recall with this soldier whether people were booing his question or just booing him.” [New Hampshire Union Leader Editorial Board Interview, 10/3/11]ROMNEY DIDN’T TAKE A STAND WHEN LIMBAUGH CALLED SANDRA FLUKE A “SLUT” AND “PROSTITUTE” FOR TESTIFYING BEFORE CONGRESS ON CONTRACEPTION Romney On Limbaugh’s Fluke Comments: “I'm Not Going To Weigh In On That Particular Controversy.” Romney when asked about Rush Limbaugh’s Sandra Fluke comments: “My campaign is about jobs, and the economy, and scaling back the size of government, and I'm not going to weigh in on that particular controversy.” [Romney Press Availability, 3/6/12]Romney When Asked About Rush Limbaugh’s Comments About Sandra Fluke: “I’ll Just Say This Which Is It’s Not The Language I Would Have Used. I’m Focusing On The Issues I Think Are Significant In The Country Today And That’s Why I’m Here Talking About Jobs And Ohio.” [Romney Rally Ropeline, Cleveland, OH, 3/2/12]Washington Post’s Kathleen Parker: Romney’s Response To Rush Limbaugh Calling A Young Woman A “Slut” On The Air Was A Missed Opportunity For Romney To Establish Himself As A Leader. “Do not fear Rush Limbaugh. When he utters something repugnant, say so. When he calls a young woman a ‘slut’ on the public airwaves, do not say you would not have chosen those words. Be offended! Be outraged! Do you need Limbaugh’s base to win? Are those really your people? You had an opportunity to establish yourself as a leader and missed it. Though not irreparable, this is a shame and is symptomatic of what ails your campaign. Too eager not to offend, you are reluctant to say what is true.” [Kathleen Parker, Washington Post, 3/6/12]Former RNC Chairman Michael S. Steele Criticized Romney’s Response To Rush Limbaugh’s Sandra Fluke Comments, Saying Romney Missed An Opportunity To Say “This Is Not What Conservatism Is About.” “Former Republican National Committee chairman Michael S. Steele said Monday on C-SPAN that Romney missed an opportunity last week to reach out to independents by not taking a stronger stand against Rush Limbaugh after the conservative talk show host attacked Georgetown University law student Sandra Fluke as a ‘slut’ and a ‘prostitute’ for her position on health insurance coverage of contraceptives. Steele said Romney had an opportunity ‘to look America in the eye and say this is not what conservatism is about, this is not the party that I want to lead, this is not the country I want to lead. .?.?. Why not begin to make that pitch .?.?. to independents?’” [Washington Post, 3/6/12]Headline: “For Romney, Saying Little On Limbaugh Said A Lot” [Boston Globe, 3/11/12]ROMNEY DIDN’T STAND UP FOR HIS FOREIGN POLICY SPOKESMAN WHO RESIGNED AFTER BEING ATTACKED BY CHRISTIAN CONSERVATIVES FOR BEING GAYBoston Globe Headline: “Top Romney Aide Quits In Face Of Anti-Gay Sentiment.” [Boston Globe, 5/1/12]Washington Post Headline: “Gay Romney Aide Steps Down, Citing Backlash Over Sexuality.” [Washington Post, 5/2/12]Washington Post’s Ruth Marcus: “A More Confident Candidate, Secure In His Place Within The Party Would Have Had The Guts – Not To Mention The Decency – To Tell The Social Conservatives To Cut It Out” But Instead Romney Said “Nothing.”? “A more confident candidate, secure in his place within the party, would have had the guts — not to mention the decency — to tell the social conservatives to cut it out. He could have repeated what Fehrnstrom told Grenell — that sexual orientation was a non-issue — and that even Republicans could disagree about same-sex marriage. Instead, Romney said .?.?. nothing.” [Marcus, Washington Post, 5/3/12]Washington Post’s Ruth Marcus: Grenell Was Called By At Least Six Romney Aides To Persuade Him Not To Resign But Apparently Wasn’t Asked By The Candidate Himself. “When he decided to resign instead, at least six top aides called Grenell to persuade him to stay on, the Times reported. But not, apparently, the candidate himself. Which left Fischer crowing, ‘It’s a huge win for us in regard to Mitt Romney. Because Mitt Romney has been forced to say, ‘Look, I overstepped my bounds here.’?’ Somewhere, Sister Souljah is smiling. Because Romney is doubly hobbled, by the extremeness of his party and the timidity of his own character.” [Marcus, Washington Post, 5/3/12]GOProud Co-Founder Chris Barron: A Romney Campaign Statement Of Support For Richard Grenell In Face Of Right-Wing Culture Warriors “Would Have Been The Right Thing To Do.” “Almost immediately after his hire was announced, Grenell became the target of right-wing culture warriors like Bryan Fischer, who called his appointment, a ‘deliberate poke in the eye to the pro-family community.’ The Romney campaign stayed largely mum throughout the conservative uproar, and when Grenell resigned, gay rights groups pounced, accusing the campaign of bowing to pressure from the right wing. ‘It seems that Bryan Fischer, Tony Perkins and their crowd are more interested in making sure that gay people can't work in this country than having the best people work to keep our country safe... For these people, not even national security trumps their anti-gay agenda,’ said Chris Barron, Co-Founder of conservative gay group GOProud. He added: ‘Would a public statement of support from the campaign for Ric have made a difference? I don't know, but it certainly would have been the right thing to do.’” [BuzzFeed, 5/1/12]Star-Ledger Editorial:The Story Of Richard Grenell “Speaks Volumes … About Mitt Romney’s Uninspired Brand Of Leadership.” “The sad story of Richard Grenell speaks volumes about the flat-out bigotry against homosexuals that is still tolerated in American politics, and about Mitt Romney’s uninspired brand of leadership.” [Editorial, Star-Ledger (NJ), 5/4/12]Former Bush State Department Official Christian Whiton: “It Seems In Retrospect Like Grenell Was Hired To Check Some Diversity Box, But Was Then Kept In The Closet Because Others Were Offended.” “Some Grenell supporters say the Romney team wasn't strenuous enough in defending the new spokesman. Christian Whiton, a former Bush State Department official and a Grenell friend, said, ‘It seems in retrospect like Grenell was hired to check some diversity box, but was then kept in the closet because others were offended.’” [Wall Street Journal, 5/1/12]ROMNEY’S RESPONSE TO TRUMP’S BIRTHER COMMENTS: “I DON’T GO AROUND TELLING MY SUPPORTERS WHAT THEY SHOULD THINK OR WHAT THEY SHOULD SAY Romney Refused To Tell Trump To Stop The Birther Arguments, And Said “I Don’t Go Around Telling My Supporters What They Should Think Or What They Should Say.” HOST: “You have the support of Donald Trump. He’s on our air every Tuesday on the morning show ‘Squawk Box,’ uh, always entertaining, always provocative, His resumption, though, of the birther argument has made some uncomfortable, and I'm wondering if you disagree with that, why not just tell him to knock it off? Why would that be so difficult?” ROMNEY: “Well I disagree there's no question that the president was born in the united states of America. I don't go around telling all my supporters what they should think or what they should say. But he knows what I believe about this. I believe the real issues in this campaign and the issues that America cares about are not issues of the president's personality or – or matters of that nature, but instead the issue is the president in a position to lead America and to get us out of these economic doldrums and put families back to work? I don't think he is. I think he's proven over the last three and a half years he's not up to the task. He's over his head.” [Romney Interview, CNBC, 6/1/12]Headlines: “Mitt Romney Won't Dump Trump.” [Politico, 5/29/12]Headline: “Trump Doubles Down On Birther Comments Despite Romney Fundraising Role.”? [The Hill, 5/25/12]Headline: “Donald Trump Is Using His Position As Mitt Romney's 'Most Significant Surrogate' To Promote Birtherism.”? [Business Insider, 5/25/12]ROMNEY DIDN’T ADMONISH A WOMAN AT HIS TOWN HALL WHO SAID PRESIDENT OBAMA SHOULD BE “TRIED FOR TREASON” AND GAVE HER A FOLLOW-UP QUESTIONAfter A Woman Said President Obama “Should Be Tried For Treason,” Romney Side-Stepped The Comment And “Allowed The Woman A Follow-Up Question.” “‘We have a president right now who is operating outside the construction of our Constitution,’ said Mr. Romney’s supporter, standing in the middle of an Ohio town hall. ‘And I do agree he should be tried for treason. But I want to know what you are going to be able to do to help restore balance between the three branches of government and what you’re going to be able to do to restore our Constitution in this country?’ ‘As I’m sure you do, I happen to believe that the Constitution was not just brilliant, but probably inspired,’ Mr. Romney said, side-stepping the woman’s comments about treason, a crime still punishable by death in the United States. Mr. Romney also allowed the woman a follow-up question.” [New York Times, 5/7/12; Romney Town Hall, Euclid, OH, 5/7/12]During A Town Hall, Romney “Did Not Admonish The Woman For Suggesting That Obama Be Tried For Treason.” “Mitt Romney stood on a factory floor here Monday as a woman asked him what he would do as president to ‘restore our Constitution in this country.’ She asserted that President Obama was operating outside the construction of the nation’s founding document and that ‘he should be tried for treason.’ Judging by the applause, many in the crowd of about 500 people at a town hall meeting seemed to agree. Romney, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, did not admonish the woman for suggesting that Obama be tried for treason. He did not refer to the woman’s comment at all.” [Washington Post, 5/7/12]Romney On Woman Saying Obama Should Be Tried For Treason: “I Don’t Correct All Of The Questions That Get Asked Of Me. Obviously I Don’t Agree That He Should Be Tried.” “After his town hall meeting finished, reporters from The Washington Post and the New York Times asked Romney as he shook hands at the ropeline whether he agreed with the woman’s statement. ‘No, no,’ Romney said, shaking his head. ‘No, of course not.’ Later, Romney told CNN: ‘I don’t correct all of the questions that get asked of me. Obviously I don’t agree that he should be tried.’” [Washington Post, 5/7/12]ROMNEY DIDN’T TAKE A STAND WHEN HIS SUPPORTERS REFER TO PRESIDENT OBAMA AS A SOCIALISTWhile Campaigning With Romney, Actor Jon Voight Said President Obama “Decided To Follow His Father’s Footsteps And Take Us Into Socialism.” “Voight, the ‘Midnight Cowboy’ actor who was also a vocal surrogate for Rudy Giuliani four years ago, also praised Romney, and jabbed Gingrich by name. ‘He is strong, honest and wants to bring the country back to its exceptional place where we have been for hundreds and hundreds of years until president Obama decided to follow his father’s footsteps and take us to socialism,’ Voight said.” [Politico, 1/28/12; Romney rally, Pensacola, FL, 1/28/12]At A Town Hall, Romney Was Introduced By Steve Ziegler Who Warned Of “Socialism” If President Obama Were Re-elected.?“But a speaker introducing Romney at a town hall meeting in Muskego a short time later took the anti-Obama rhetoric even further. Steve Ziegler, president of InPro Corporation, which hosted Romney, warned of unchecked ‘socialism’ if Obama is re-elected. ‘We're gonna see socialism unleashed on America like we've never seen before,’ Ziegler declared. The audience was largely unresponsive to Ziegler's remarks, and Romney did not repeat the man's sentiments.” [The Ticket, Yahoo News,?3/31/12; Romney Town Hall, Muskego, WI, 3/31/12]ROMNEY’S CAMPAIGN DIDN’T TAKE A STAND AGAINST HIS OHIO CO-CHAIR’S REMARKS ATTACKING PRESIDENT OBAMA FOR SPENDING TIME WITH HIS FAMILY THAT IS “NOT MIDDLE CLASS” AND SAID ROMNEY PROBABLY DIDN’T HEAR THE COMMENTSOhio Auditor Dave Yost Serves As A Co-Chair Of The Romney For President Leadership Team. “Mitt Romney today announced the support of Ohio Auditor Dave Yost. Yost will serve as a Co-Chair of the Romney for President Ohio Leadership Team. ‘I’m pleased to earn Dave’s support,’ said Mitt Romney.” [Romney For President, 2/29/12]Romney Campaign: Romney Probably Did Not Hear Ohio State Auditor Dave Yost Criticized President Obama And His Family For Taking Vacations And Saying They Were “Not Middle Class.” “The Obama campaign also took issue with comments by Dave Yost, Ohio's state auditor, who was one of several warm up speakers prior to Romney and mocked the president and first family for vacations they have taken since Obama became president, saying they were ‘not middle class.’ The Obama campaign accused Romney of ‘standing by silently as his chief surrogate attacked the President’s family,’ but in all likelihood Romney did not hear those remarks at all, as his campaign aides note, he was talking with local families in a closed-press meeting prior to taking the stage here.” [First Read, NBC News, 5/7/12]Romney Campaign: Ohio Auditor Dave Yost Was Not Speaking For Romney Campaign When He Criticized President Obama And His Family For Taking Vacations. Washington Post’s Philip Rucker tweet: “A Romney aide says Ohio auditor Dave Yost - who slammed Obama & fam for taking too many vacations - was not speaking for the campaign.” [@PhilipRucker, Twitter, 5/7/12]OH State Auditor David Yost: “I’m Tired Of Hearing [President Obama] Talk About The Middle Class As If Though He Knows Anything About Us.” [Romney Town Hall, Cleveland, OH, 5/7/12]OH State Auditor David Yost: “It Strikes Me As A Little Weird [To Give President Obama Credit For Killing Osama Bin Laden], I Mean, That’s Like Giving Ronald McDonald Credit For The Big Mac You Had For Lunch.” [Romney Town Hall, Cleveland, OH, 5/7/12]ROMNEY IGNORED CALLS TO DENOUNCE HIS SUPPORTER, TED NUGENT’S OFFENSIVE COMMENTS ABOUT THE PRESIDENT…Headline: “Ted Nugent Calls Obama Team 'Criminals,' Romney Ignores It” [The Ballot, US News & World Report, 4/17/12]Romney Campaign On Ted Nugent Made An Apparent Threat Against President Obama: “Divisive Language Is Offensive No Matter What Side Of The Political Aisle It Comes From. Mitt Romney Believes Everyone Needs To Be Civil.” “Republican candidate Mitt Romney's campaign called for civility on Tuesday after aging rock star Ted Nugent made an apparent threat against President Barack Obama before an audience of U.S. gun lobbyists. … Andrea Saul, Romney's spokeswoman, did not condemn Nugent in an email on Tuesday but said Romney wants to promote civility. ‘Divisive language is offensive no matter what side of the political aisle it comes from. Mitt Romney believes everyone needs to be civil,’ she said.” [Reuters, 4/17/12]Ted Nugent: “If Barack Obama Becomes The President In November Again, I Will Either Be Dead Or In Jail This Time Next Year.”? [Ted Nugent remarks, NRA Annual Meeting, 4/14/12; via Right Wing Watch, 4/16/12]Ted Nugent On The 2012 Election: “We Need To Ride Into That Battlefield And Chop Their Heads Off In November.”? [Ted Nugent remarks, NRA Annual Meeting, 4/14/12; via Right Wing Watch, 4/16/12]Ted Nugent Called The Obama Administration “Vile,” “Evil,” And “America-Hating.”? NUGENT: “If you can’t go home and get everybody in your lives to clean house in this vile, evil, America-hating administration, I don’t even know what you’re made out of.”? [Ted Nugent remarks, NRA Annual Meeting, 4/14/12; via Right Wing Watch, 4/16/12]Ted Nugent: “Our President And Our Attorney General, Our Vice President, Hillary Clinton, They’re Criminals.”? [Ted Nugent remarks, NRA Annual Meeting, 4/14/12; via Right Wing Watch, 4/16/12]…AND NUGENT SAID THE ROMNEY CAMPAIGN ENCOURAGED HIM TO CONTINUE TO “STAY ON COURSE”Ted Nugent Said That The Romney Campaign “Expressed Support” For Him After His Controversial Remarks About The Obama Administration Resulted In Him Getting Interviewed By The Secret Service.? HOST: “Have you heard from the Romney campaign after these comments?”? NUGENT: “I have.” ?HOST: “And?”? NUGENT: “I have to say what I say the way I say it.”? HOST: “Were they unhappy with you for saying that?”? NUGENT: “No.? They expressed support.”? HOST: “Did they say to you, ‘Listen, we appreciate the support, tone it down.’”? NUGENT: “Nope.? I got the sensation it was, um, and not from Mitt himself of Mrs. Romney, um, stay on course, Ted.? Freedom of speech is a beautiful thing.”? [This Morning, CBS, 5/4/12]Ted Nugent Said The Romney Campaign Told Him To “Stay On Course” And Not To Tone It Down After Nugent Said He Would “Either Be Dead Or In Jail By This Time Next Year” If President Obama Is Re-Elected. “Ted Nugent, after a Secret Service investigation, a canceled Army concert and an outpouring of criticism, said presumptive GOP nominee Mitt Romney's camp ‘expressed support’ for the controversial comments he made about President Obama last month at the annual National Rifle Association meeting. The no-holds-barred Texas rocker told CBS' ‘This Morning’ that Romney's campaign told him to ‘stay on course’ and not to tone it down after Nugent said he will ‘either be dead or in jail by this time next year’ if President Obama is re-elected.” [ABC News, 5/4/12]ROMNEY’S CAMPAIGN WOULDN’T CONDEMN REP. ALLEN WEST FOR CALLING HOUSE DEMOCRATS MEMBERS OF HE COMMUNIST PARTYWhen Asked Whether Romney Would Condemn Rep. Allen West’s Comment That There Were 78 To 81 Members Of The Communist Party Among House Democrats, Eric Fehrnstrom Would Only Say, “That's Not A Point Of View Shared By Governor Romney.” WOLF BLITZER: “You also heard president clinton really express his frustration and irritation that Mitt Romney and other top republicans have not condemned Congressman Alan West for saying flatly that there are 78 to 81 members of the communist party among the house democrats. Why is Romney silent on that?” ERIC FEHRNSTROM: “Well, that's not a point of view that’s shared by governor Romney, I can tell you that. Look, this election isn't about what alan west said. This election is about 23 million americans who are either out of work or underemployed and they're looking for a president that has the right policies and the right qualifications and experience to lead on the number one issue facing us, which is jobs and the economy. You saw what happened in Wisconsin, just recently, that was first and foremost, a vote of confidence in Scott Walker's leadership as governor, but what Scott Walker did in Wisconsin was to take on some big issues and as a result of doing that successfully, he got the budget on the right track, he's got the economy moving in the right direction. When governor romney said that election echoes beyond the borders of Wisconsin, what he means is that Americans are going to be looking for that same leadership on the budget and the economy in washington.” [Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer, CNN, 6/7/12]ROMNEY TOLD A WOMAN AT HIS TOWN HALL SHE HAD “EVERY RIGHT TO BE ANGRY” AFTER SHE CALLED THE PRESIDENT A “MONSTER”An Audience Member At A Romney Town Hall In Bowling Green, Ohio Called President Obama A “Monster.” AUDIENCE MEMBER: “Hi, Mitt. It’s good to see you again. I wanted to tell you about my son. He is the epitome of what you’ve been speaking about all week. He created his own business with his own idea. He used to be a VP at a different firm—I can’t say who. And he has a string of stores. And because of this awful economy that Obama has created, now he’s had to lay off people. And he may have to close some stores. And it’s all because of what this monster has done to this country. We have to have you as President! ROMNEY: “that’s not a term I would use, but…” AUDIENCE MEMBER: “But I can. I’m an angry mom! ROMNEY: “you have every right to be angry…” [Romney Town Hall, Bowling Green, OH, 7/18/12]PLANS FOR A SECOND TERMPRO-POTUSPresident Obama Has A Plan To Put More People Back To Work And Create Long Term Economic GrowthPRESIDENT OBAMA HAS A PLAN TO PUT MORE PEOPLE BACK TO WORK AND LAY THE FOUNDATION FOR LONG TERM ECONOMIC GROWTHPRESIDENT OBAMA SET A GOAL OF CREATING 1 MILLION NEW MANUFACTURING JOBS, BOOSTED BY DOUBLING OUR EXPORTS AND CUTTING TAXES FOR COMPANIES THAT BRING JOBS BACK TO THE U.S. President Obama Set A Goal Of Creating One Million New Manufacturing Jobs Over The Next Four Years.?“President Barack Obama will set a goal of creating 1 million new manufacturing jobs over the next four years and doubling exports during the next two years, according to?excerpts of his speech?to the Democratic National Convention released Thursday.” [CNN,?9/6/12]President Obama’s Tax Reform Framework Removes Tax Deductions For Moving Production Overseas And Provides New Incentives For Bringing Production Back To The United States. “Remove tax deductions for moving productions overseas and provide new incentives for bringing production back to the United States. The tax code currently allows companies moving operations overseas to deduct their moving expenses—and reduce their taxes in the United States as a result. The President is proposing that companies will no longer be allowed to claim tax deductions for moving their operations abroad. At the same time, to help bring jobs home, the President is proposing to give a 20 percent income tax credit for the expenses of moving operations back into the United States.” [The President’s Framework For Tax Reform, February 2012]President Obama Created The National Export Initiative To Create Jobs By Putting America On The Path To Doubling Exports By 2015. “[In] order to enhance and coordinate Federal efforts to facilitate the creation of jobs in the United States through the promotion of exports… The NEI will help meet my Administration's goal of doubling exports over the next 5 years by working to remove trade barriers abroad, by helping firms -- especially small businesses -- overcome the hurdles to entering new export markets, by assisting with financing, and in general by pursuing a Government-wide approach to export advocacy abroad, among other steps.” [Executive Order – National Export Initiative, 3/11/10]PRESIDENT OBAMA PLANS TO MAKE SURE WE’RE TRAINING AMERICANS, BOTH YOUNG AND MID-CAREER, FOR THE JOBS OF THE FUTUREPresident Obama Has Set A Goal Of Preparing More Than 100,000 New Math And Science Teachers Over The Next 10 Years. “Obama has set a goal of preparing more than 100,000 math and science teachers and training a million additional math, technology, engineering and science graduates over the next decade.” [Seattle Times, 02/07/12]The President Proposed Training Two Million Workers For Good-Paying Jobs Through New Partnerships Between Community Colleges And Businesses. “The bulk of the job-training money would come in an $8-billion ‘Community College to Career Fund,’ which would provide money to community colleges and states to form partnerships with businesses to train an estimated two million workers in high-growth and in-demand areas.” [Chronicle of Higher Education, 02/13/12]PRESIDENT OBAMA’S ALL-OF-THE-ABOVE ENERGY STRATEGY WILL DEVELOP OIL, GAS AND COAL, BUT ALSO PRESIDENT OBAMA HAS SET A GOAL OF CUTTING OUR NET OIL IMPORTS IN HALF BY 2020, CONTINUING INVESTMENTS IN CLEAN ENERGY, AND ENCOURAGING THE DEVELOPMENT OF NATURAL GAS TO SUPPORT HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF JOBSPresident Obama Set A Goal Of Reducing The United States Imports Of Foreign Oil By Half By 2020. “We’re offering a better path, where we -- a future where we keep investing in wind and solar and clean coal; where farmers and scientists harness new biofuels to power our cars and trucks; where construction workers build homes and factories that waste less energy; where we develop a hundred-year supply of natural gas that’s right beneath our feet.? If you choose this path, we can cut our oil imports in half by 2020 and support more than 600,000 new jobs in natural gas alone.” [Remarks by the President at the Democratic National Convention, 9/7/12]President Obama Is Calling On Congress To Extend The Production Tax Credit That Spurs Clean Energy Production By Providing A Tax Credit For The Production Of Clean Energy Like Wind. From a White House fact sheet: “The Production Tax Credit, which expires at the end of 2012, provides a 2.2 cent per kilowatt hour credit for utility scale wind producers. Congress should act to extend the credit. By extending the PTC benefits for American clean energy producers we can avoid layoffs across the country: The wind industry projects that nearly 30,000 jobs will be lost next year if the PTC expires, including direct jobs as well as those in its supply chain.” [White House Fact Sheet, 5/22/12]President Obama Instructed His Administration To Ensure The Development Of Shale Gas Resources That Could Support More Than 600,000 Jobs By The End Of The Decade. “In 2009, we became the world’s leading producer of natural gas. Tonight, the President directed the administration to ensure safe shale gas development that, according to independent estimates, will support more than 600,000 jobs by the end of the decade.” [Blueprint for an America Built to Last, 1/24/12]PRESIDENT OBAMA HAS A BALANCED PLAN TO REDUCE THE DEFICIT BY MORE THAN $4 TRILLION OVER THE NEXT DECADEThe President’s Budget, Which Incorporates Deficit Reduction Enacted In 2011, Would Cut The Deficit By More Than $4 Trillion Over The Next Decade. “That is why in this Budget, the President again has put forward a plan that will, together with the deficit reduction enacted last year, cut the deficit by more than $4 trillion over the next decade. This would put our Nation on the right course toward a level of deficits of below 3 percent of GDP by the end of the decade.” [White House Office Of Management And Budget, February 2012]Center On Budget And Policy Priorities: President Obama’s Budget Would Stabilize The Debt Over The Coming Decade Through “A Balanced Combination Of Spending Cuts And Revenue Increases.”? “If Congress enacted the Obama budget in full?and?its economic assumptions proved correct, the debt would stabilize over the coming decade although, as the White House acknowledges, policymakers would have to subsequently enact significant further deficit reduction to keep the debt stable in future decades. The budget either achieves or approaches this key fiscal target for the coming decade with several trillion dollars in deficit reduction, through a balanced combination of spending cuts and revenue increases.” [Center On Budget And Policy Priorities, 2/16/12]PRESIDENT OBAMA’S PLAN USES SAVINGS FROM ENDING FOREIGN WARS TO REBUILD AMERICAN INFRASTRUCTUREPresident Obama Proposed To Create Jobs By Using Half Of The Savings From Ending Foreign Wars To Rebuild American Infrastructure. To help ensure we have the infrastructure so that companies can ship their goods more efficiently throughout the country and the world, the President is calling for new efforts to revitalize American infrastructure. The President’s plan will protect taxpayer dollars by fixing existing roads and by directing funding to the best projects instead of earmarks, and will continue investments in high-speed rail. To pay for these investments, the President is proposing to use approximately half of the savings that we will achieve from winding down wars in Iraq and Afghanistan over the 6 year period of the infrastructure plan with the other half going towards paying down the debt. The President also announced that within the coming weeks, he will sign an Executive Order clearing the red tape that can slow down new infrastructure projects, accelerating those projects that have already been funded.” [“An America Built To Last,” White House, February 2012] Training Two Million Workers For Good-Paying Jobs Through Community College-Business PartnershipsPRESIDENT OBAMA PROPOSED TRAINING TWO MILLION WORKERS FOR GOOD-PAYING JOBS THROUGH NEW PARTNERSHIPS BETWEEN COMMUNITY COLLEGES AND BUSINESSESPresident Obama: “Help Give Two Million Workers The Chance To Learn Skills At Their Community College That Will Lead Directly To A Job.” “Help Give Two Million Workers The Chance To Learn Skills At Their Community College That Will Lead Directly To A Job.” [President Obama’s Remarks At The Democratic National Convention, 09/07/12]The President Proposed Training Two Million Workers For Good-Paying Jobs Through New Partnerships Between Community Colleges And Businesses. “The bulk of the job-training money would come in an $8-billion ‘Community College to Career Fund,’ which would provide money to community colleges and states to form partnerships with businesses to train an estimated two million workers in high-growth and in-demand areas.” [Chronicle of Higher Education, 02/13/12]President Obama Announced The Community College To Career Fund, An $8 Billion Investment In His?Fiscal Year 2013 Budget?That Would Train?Two Million Workers. “Today,?President Obama announced the Community College to Career Fund, an $8 billion investment in his?Fiscal Year 2013 Budget?that would train?two million workers with skills that lead directly to good jobs in industries that need workers, including advanced manufacturing, clean energy, and information technology.” [White House, 02/13/12]Cutting Oil Imports In Half By 2020PRESIDENT OBAMA HAS A PLAN TO CUT OUR IMPORTS OF FOREIGN OIL IN HALF BY 2020 BY BOOSTING DOMESTIC OIL PRODUCTION, INCREASING THE EFFICIENCY OF OUR VEHICLES, AND INVESTING IN CLEAN SOURCES OF ENERGYPRESIDENT OBAMA PROPOSED A PLAN FOR AMERICAN ENERGY THAT WOULD CUT OUR OIL IMPORTS IN HALF BY 2020President Obama Set A Goal Of Reducing The United States Imports Of Foreign Oil By Half By 2020. “We’re offering a better path, where we -- a future where we keep investing in wind and solar and clean coal; where farmers and scientists harness new biofuels to power our cars and trucks; where construction workers build homes and factories that waste less energy; where we develop a hundred-year supply of natural gas that’s right beneath our feet. If you choose this path, we can cut our oil imports in half by 2020 and support more than 600,000 new jobs in natural gas alone.” [Remarks by the President at the Democratic National Convention, 9/7/12]PRESIDENT OBAMA’S FUEL ECONOMY STANDARDS WILL REDUCE OIL CONSUMPTION BY 2.2 MILLION BARRELS A DAY BY 2025Fuel Economy Standards Established By The Obama Administration Will Reduce Oil Consumption By An Estimated 2.2 Million Barrels A Day In 2025 And 12 Billion Barrels Over The Lifetime Of The Program. “Taken together, the standards established under this Administration span Model Years 2011 to 2025. They will save American families money at the pump, for a total of $1.7 trillion in fuel savings over the life of the program. The standards will cut our oil dependence, reducing oil consumption by an estimated 2.2 million barrels a day in 2025 (eventually reaching more than 4 million barrels a day as the fleet turns over), and saving 12 billion barrels in total over the lifetime of the program.” [The White House, “Driving Efficiency: Cutting Costs for Families at the Pump and Slashing Dependence on Oil,” accessed 9/13/12]The Obama Administration’s Fuel Efficiency Program Will Nearly Double Fuel Economy To 54.5 Miles Per Gallon, Which Will Help To Save The Average Car Buyer More Than $8,000 At The Pump. From an Environmental Protection Agency press release: “The Obama Administration today finalized groundbreaking standards that will increase fuel economy to the equivalent of 54.5 mpg for cars and light-duty trucks by Model Year 2025. When combined with previous standards set by this Administration, this move will nearly double the fuel efficiency of those vehicles compared to new vehicles currently on our roads. … The Administration’s combined efforts represent the first meaningful update to fuel efficiency standards in decades. Together, they will save American families more than $1.7 trillion dollars in fuel costs, resulting in an average fuel savings of more than $8,000 by 2025 over the lifetime of the vehicle.” [Environmental Protection Agency Press Release, 8/28/12]PRESIDENT OBAMA’S PLAN WOULD OPEN UP MORE AREAS FOR SAFE OIL AND GAS PRODUCTION, EXPAND THE USE OF BIOFUELS, AND PROMOTE ADVANCED VEHICLESThe Obama Administration’s Five-Year Offshore Leasing Plan Makes More Than 75 Percent Of Offshore Oil And Gas Resources Available For Development. According to a Bureau of Ocean Energy Management fact sheet, there are 159.49 billion barrels of undiscovered technically recoverable oil equivalent in the Outer Continental Shelf. The 2012 – 2017 proposed final leasing plan makes 122.27 billion barrels of undiscovered technically recoverable oil equivalent in the Outer Continental Shelf available for leasing, representing 76.6% of total offshore resources. [Bureau of Ocean Energy Management Fact Sheet, accessed 6/28/12]The EPA Is Implementing A New Renewable Fuel Standard To Require That 36 Billion Gallons Of Renewable Fuels Be Blended Into Transportation Fuel By 2022. “The revised statutory requirements establish new specific annual volume standards for cellulosic biofuel, biomass-based diesel, advanced biofuel, and total renewable fuel that must be used in transportation fuel. […] This final rule revises the annual renewable fuel standards (RFS2) and makes the necessary program modifications as set forth in EISA. Of these modifications, several are notable. First, the required renewable fuel volume continues to increase under RFS2, reaching 36 bg by 2022.” [Environmental Protection Agency, February 2010]The Renewable Fuel Standard Will Displace About 13.6 Billion Gallons Of Petroleum-Based Fuel. “We estimate that the increased use of renewable fuels needed to reach the 36 billion gallons mandated by 2022 relative to market projections in the absence of the mandate will displace about 13.6 billion gallons of petroleum-based gasoline and diesel fuel. This represents about 7 percent of expected annual gasoline and diesel consumption in 2022. Furthermore, we expect the rule to decrease oil imports by $41.5 billion, and to result in additional energy security benefits of $2.6 billion. By 2022, the increased use of renewable fuels is expected to decrease gasoline costs by 2.4 cents per gallon and to decrease diesel costs by 12.1 cents per gallon.” [Environmental Protection Agency, February 2010]The Bureau Of Land Management Will Implement A New System For Tracking Drilling Permits And Leases That Could Reduce The Review Period Of Drilling Permits By Two-Thirds. “Concluding a two-day visit to areas in North Dakota benefiting from a major oil boom in and around the Bakken Formation, Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar today unveiled new initiatives to expedite safe and responsible development of domestic energy resources on U.S. public lands and Indian trust lands in the Dakotas, Montana and states across the country. As part of the Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM) ongoing efforts to ensure efficient processing of oil and gas permit applications, the agency will implement new automated tracking systems that could reduce the review period for drilling permits by two-thirds and expedite the sale and processing of federal oil and gas leases.” [Bureau of Land Management Press Release, 4/3/12]The Obama Administration Extended Nearly 1,400 Offshore Oil And Gas Leases In 2011, Giving Operators More Time To Meet New Safety Standards Put In Place Following The Oil Spill In The Gulf Of Mexico. “The Obama administration announced Monday that it has extended nearly 1,400 deep-water oil and gas drilling leases to make up for delays caused by last year's Gulf spill and a subsequent moratorium on some offshore exploration. The extensions of up to a year were aimed at compensating offshore energy companies for the five-month deep-water drilling ban and giving them more time to meet new safety and environmental standards imposed on that work. Ultimately, federal regulators approved 1,381 - or 97.7 percent - of 1,413 extension requests, according to the Interior Department's Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement.” [Houston Chronicle, 10/31/11]President Obama Has Called On Congress To Provide Additional Tax Credits For Advanced Energy Manufacturing Technologies Like Solar Panels, Advanced Vehicles, And Carbon Capture Technologies. From a White House fact sheet: “The Advanced Energy Manufacturing Tax Credit provides a 30 percent investment credit to manufacturers who invest in capital equipment to make components for clean energy projects in the U.S., working in tandem with the Production Tax Credit to create jobs and help reduce our dependence on foreign oil and secure a clean energy future for the United States. … Qualifying technologies include solar panels, wind turbines, and geothermal generation; fuel cells, advanced vehicle batteries, and smart grid technologies; carbon capture and sequestration technologies; advanced vehicles and advanced vehicle components.” [White House Fact Sheet, 5/22/12]UNDER PRESIDENT OBAMA, THE UNITED STATES’ OIL IMPORTS AND DEPENDENCE ON FOREIGN OIL HAVE ALREADY FALLEN SIGNIFICANTLYIn The First Seven Months Of 2012, The United States’ Dependence On Foreign Oil Was At Its Lowest Level In 20 Years. According to the Energy Information Administration, in the first seven months of 2012, the percent of net imports of petroleum as a share of petroleum products supplied averaged 42.1%. According to Energy Information Administration data, this is the lowest level since 1992 when the percent of net petroleum imports as a share of petroleum product supplied was 40.7%. [Calculated from Energy Information Administration data, Monthly Energy Review, August 2012]The United States Has Cut Its Net Imports Of Oil By 10 Percent, Approximately A Million Barrels A Day, In The Past Year. In 2010, the United States’ net imports of oil and petroleum were 9.441 million barrels per day. In 2011, the United States’ net imports of oil and petroleum were 8.436 million barrels per day. [Calculated from Energy Information Administration data, Monthly Energy Review, August 2012]Creating One Million New Manufacturing JobsPRESIDENT OBAMA HAS A PLAN TO CREATE ON MILLION NEW MANUFACTURING JOBS OVER FOUR? YEARS BY SUPPORTING DOMESTIC MANUFACTURERS, ENCOURAGING INSOURCING, AND TRAINING AMERICAN WORKERS FOR SKILLED JOBS IN HIGH-GROWTH SECTORS PRESIDENT OBAMA HAS A PLAN TO CREATE ONE MILLION NEW MANUFACTURING JOBS BY THE END OF 2016, BUILDING ON A RECENT TREND OF INSOURCINGPresident Obama Set A Goal Of Creating One Million New Manufacturing Jobs Over The Next Four Years.?“President Barack Obama will set a goal of creating 1 million new manufacturing jobs over the next four years and doubling exports during the next two years, according to?excerpts of his speech?to the Democratic National Convention released Thursday.” [CNN,?9/6/12]The Boston Consulting Group Found That 37 Percent Of Companies Surveyed Planned To Reshore Or Were Actively Considering Reshoring. “In February, Boston Consulting Group surveyed 106 companies with annual sales of $1 billion or more and found that 37% planned to reshore or were ‘actively considering’ it. The MIT survey is more precise in singling out those with definite plans. When asked the broader question of whether they were considering a move to reshore, the MIT study found that 33% of those surveyed said yes.” [Wall Street Journal, 7/18/12]An MIT Study Found That 14 Percent Of U.S. Companies Surveyed “Definitely Plan To Move Some Of Their Manufacturing Back Home— The Latest Sign Of Growing Interest Among Executives In A Strategy Known As ‘Reshoring.’”? “About 14% of U.S. companies surveyed by a Massachusetts Institute of Technology professor definitely plan to move some of their manufacturing back home—the latest sign of growing interest among executives in a strategy known as ‘reshoring.’” [Wall Street Journal, 7/18/12]PRESIDENT OBAMA WOULD REFORM THE CORPORATE TAX CODE TO BRING DOWN TAX RATES – CUTTING TAX RATES ON DOMESTIC MANUFACTURERS BY NEARLY A QUARTER President Obama’s Tax Reform Framework Would Effectively Cut The Top Corporate Tax Rate On Manufacturing Income To 25 Percent, With An Even Lower Rate For Advanced Manufacturing Activities. “Effectively cut the top corporate tax rate on manufacturing income to 25 percent and to an even lower rate for income from advanced manufacturing activities by reforming the domestic production activities deduction. Reflecting manufacturing’s key role in innovation and the intense international competition facing the sector, the President’s Framework would reform the current domestic production activities deduction. It would focus the deduction more on manufacturing activity, expand the deduction to 10.7 percent, and increase it even more for advanced manufacturing. This would effectively cut the top corporate tax rate for manufacturing income to 25 percent and even lower for advanced manufacturing.” [The President’s Framework For Tax Reform, February 2012]PRESIDENT OBAMA WOULD END TAX DEDUCTIONS FOR COMPANIES SHIPPING JOBS OVERSEAS, AND USE THE SAVINGS TO CREATE A NEW TAX CREDIT FOR COMPANIES BRINGING JOBS HOMEPresident Obama’s Tax Reform Framework Removes Tax Deductions For Moving Production Overseas And Provides New Incentives For Bringing Production Back To The United States. “Remove tax deductions for moving productions overseas and provide new incentives for bringing production back to the United States. The tax code currently allows companies moving operations overseas to deduct their moving expenses—and reduce their taxes in the United States as a result. The President is proposing that companies will no longer be allowed to claim tax deductions for moving their operations abroad. At the same time, to help bring jobs home, the President is proposing to give a 20 percent income tax credit for the expenses of moving operations back into the United States.” [The President’s Framework For Tax Reform, February 2012]PRESIDENT OBAMA WOULD CREATE A NEW NETWORK OF 15 TO 20 MANUFACTURING INNOVATION INSTITUTES, TO ENSURE THAT THE NEXT GENERATION OF PRODUCTS ARE INVENTED AND MANUFACTURED IN THE U.S.President Obama Has A Plan To Invest In A National Network Of Manufacturing Innovation Institutes To Make Our Manufacturers More Competitive And Encourage Investment In The United States.? “On March 9, 2012, President Obama announced his plan to invest $1 billion to catalyze a national network of up to 15 manufacturing innovation institutes around the country that would serve as regional hubs of manufacturing excellence that will help to make our manufacturers more competitive and encourage investment in the United States.? The President called on Congress to act on this proposal and create the National Network of Manufacturing Innovation (NNMI).” [White House Press Release, 9/13/12]Supporting 600,000 New Jobs In The Natural Gas IndustryPRESIDENT OBAMA HAS A PLAN TO SUPPORT 600,000 NEW JOBS IN THE NATURAL GAS INDUSTRY BY THE END OF THE DECADEPRESIDENT OBAMA HAS PLEDGED TO SUPPORT THE SAFE AND RESPONSIBLE DEVELOPMENT OF OUR NATURAL GAS RESOURCES, WHICH WILL HELP SUPPORT MORE THAN 600,000 JOBS BY THE END OF THE DECADEPresident Obama Stated That His Energy Plan Will Support Natural Gas Development That Would Support More Than 600,000 New Jobs In The Natural Gas Industry By 2020. “We’re offering a better path, where we -- a future where we keep investing in wind and solar and clean coal; where farmers and scientists harness new biofuels to power our cars and trucks; where construction workers build homes and factories that waste less energy; where we develop a hundred-year supply of natural gas that’s right beneath our feet. If you choose this path, we can cut our oil imports in half by 2020 and support more than 600,000 new jobs in natural gas alone.” [Remarks by the President at the Democratic National Convention, 9/7/12]PRESIDENT OBAMA IS ENCOURAGING THE DEVELOPMENT OF OUR NATURAL GAS RESOURCES BY STREAMLINING OVERSIGHT OF DRILLING, ENCOURAGING THE USE OF NATURAL GAS VEHICLES, AND SUPPORTING RESEARCH INTO NEW WAYS TO USE AND STORE NATURAL GASPresident Obama Has Taken Action To Streamline Oversight Of Natural Gas Drilling, A Move That Was Praised By Industry For Its Acknowledgement That States Are The Primary Regulators Of Natural Gas. “President Barack Obama streamlined oversight of the natural gas drilling boom on Friday as his administration faced increasing pressure to allow exports of the fuel as supplies swell. Obama issued an executive order creating an interagency group to oversee development of natural gas, building on a pledge he made in his State of the Union address in January to support the industry while increasing safety. … The order seeks to coordinate regulation among agencies and their efforts to boost use of natural gas in cars and trucks. Several energy industry groups, including the American Petroleum Institute and America's Natural Gas Alliance, praised the directive for its acknowledgement that states, not the federal government, are the primary regulators of natural gas.” [Reuters, 4/13/12]President Obama Announced A National Community Deployment Challenge To Encourage The Use Of Natural Gas And Alternative Fuel Technologies. “President Obama outlined new plans Wednesday to support the sales and use of alternative-fuel vehicles -- including cars and trucks that run on hydrogen and natural gas instead of just those that run on electricity. The plans are part of a $1 billion National Community Deployment Challenge intended to support the use of natural gas and other alternative fuel technologies, in addition to plug-in vehicles.” [CNN Money, 3/7/12]The Program Would Support The Creation Of As Many As 5 Natural Gas Corridors For Commercial Trucks. “The program would also support the creation of up to five liquefied natural gas corridors that would allow commercial trucks to use natural gas to transport goods.” [CNN Money, 3/7/12]President Obama Proposed A 50 Percent Tax Credit To Cover The Additional Cost Of Alternative Fuel Trucks. “The president, speaking at a Daimler truck factory in North Carolina, also talked about increasing the fuel economy of commercial trucks. Daimler has been a partner in the Energy Department's SuperTruck program, a program aimed at increasing the fuel economy of 18-wheeler trucks by 50%. Daimler makes Freightliner trucks. Obama proposed a 50% tax credit to cover the additional cost of alternative fuel trucks -- including those that run on natural gas or electricity. Creating alternative fuel trucks often involves purchasing a gasoline- or diesel-powered vehicle and ‘up-fitting’ it to use an alternative power source.” [CNN Money, 3/7/12]President Obama’s Fiscal Year 2013 Budget Includes $45 Million For An Interagency Research And Development Program To Develop Natural Gas Resources. “The Blueprint directed the Secretary of Energy Advisory Board (SEAB) to establish a subcommittee and identify measures that can be taken to reduce the environmental impact and improve the safety of shale gas production. The final SEAB report was issued in November 2011. The Department of Energy, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the Department of the Interior are acting on many of the recommendations, For example the Administration’s FY 2013 budget includes a $45 million interagency R&D program.” [Blueprint For A Secure Energy Future: One-Year Progress Report, March 2012]UNDER PRESIDENT OBAMA, DOMESTIC NATURAL GAS PRODUCTION REACHED AN ALL-TIME HIGHDomestic Production Of Natural Gas Is At An All-Time High. According to Energy Information Administration data, the United States’ marketed production of natural gas was 24,169,613 million cubic in 2011, breaking the previous record of 22,647,549 million cubic feet in 1973. [Energy Information Administration, released on 7/31/12]Domestic Marketed Production Of Natural Gas Has Increased Every Year Since President Obama Took Office. In 2008, marketed production of natural gas was 21,112,053 million cubic feet, in 2009 marketed production of natural gas was 21,647,936 million cubic feet, in 2010 marketed production was 22,402,141 million cubic feet. In 2011 marketed production of natural gas was 24,169,613 million cubic feet. [Energy Information Administration, released on 7/31/12]In 2011, Marketed Production Of Natural Gas Grew An Estimated 7.4 Percent, The Largest Year-Over-Year Increase In Volume In History. “Total marketed production grew by an estimated 4.5 Bcf/d (7.4 percent) in 2011, the largest year‐over‐year volumetric increase in history.” [Energy Information Administration, 1/10/12]Recruit And Prepare 100,000 Math And Science TeachersPRESIDENT OBAMA PROPOSED TO RECRUIT AND PREPARE 100,000 MATH AND SCIENCE TEACHERS OVER THE NEXT DECADEPresident Obama: “Help Me Recruit 100,000 Math And Science Teachers In The Next Ten Years, And Improve Early Childhood Education.” [President Obama’s Remarks At The Democratic National Convention, 09/07/12]President Obama Has Set A Goal Of Preparing More Than 100,000 New Math And Science Teachers Over The Next 10 Years. “Obama has set a goal of preparing more than 100,000 math and science teachers and training a million additional math, technology, engineering and science graduates over the next decade.” [Seattle Times, 02/07/12]The President Announced To Prepare 100,000 Effective Math And Science Teachers And Meet The Urgent Need To Train One Million Additional STEM Graduates Over The Next Decade.“The President will also announce key additional steps that the Administration and its partners are taking to prepare 100,000 effective math and science teachers and to meet the urgent need to train one million additional STEM graduates over the next decade.” [White House Press Release, 02/07/12]Cut Tuition Growth In HalfPRESIDENT OBAMA PROPOSED TO CUT THE GROWTH OF TUITION COSTS IN HALF OVER THE NEXT DECADEPresident Obama: “Help Us Work With Colleges And Universities To Cut In Half The Growth Of Tuition Costs Over The Next Ten Years.” “Help us work with colleges and universities to cut in half the growth of tuition costs over the next ten years. We can meet that goal together.” [President Obama’s Remarks At The Democratic National Convention, 09/07/12]The Administration’s Budget Offers $1 Billion In "Race To The Top"-Style Grants To States That Slow Their Tuition Growth And Sustain Their Higher-Education Budgets. “The election-year budget, which comes at a time of shrinking revenue and rising deficits, would also double the number of work-study jobs and reward colleges and states that slow their tuition growth and sustain their higher-education budgets. As the president promised in his State of the Union address and a speech at the University of Michigan late last month, the administration would offer $1-billion in "Race to the Top"-style grants to states and expand the Perkins Loan program from $1-billion to $8.5-billion, allocating additional aid to institutions that offer relatively low net tuition, graduate relatively high proportions of Pell recipients, and prepare graduates to obtain employment and repay their loans.” [Chronicle of Higher Education, 02/13/12]The President’s Proposed First In The World Competition To Develop, Validate, And Or Scale Up Innovative And Effective Strategies For Long-Term Productivity In Higher Education. “The President’s proposed First in the World Competition will improve long-term productivity in higher education by investing $55 million to enable individual colleges and nonprofit organizations to develop, validate, or scale up innovative and effective strategies for boosting productivity and enhancing quality on campuses This initiative will provide modest start-up funding for projects at individual colleges and universities that could lead to longer-term and larger productivity improvements—such as course redesign through the improved use of technology; early college preparation activities to lessen the need for remediation; competency-based approaches to gaining college credit; and other ideas aimed at spurring changes in the culture of higher education.” [Education Blueprint: An Economy Built To Last, White House, Accessed 09/11/12]President Obama Has Proposed Federal Campus-Based Aid Reform That Rewards Colleges That Set Responsible Tuition Policy, Provide Good Value To Students And Families, Serve Low-Income Students. “The President’s proposed reform of federal campus-based aid aims to reward those colleges that keep tuition from spiraling too high and that provide greater value for students Through modifications to this federal aid program, the Obama Administration would improve the distribution of campus-based financial aid and expand the availability of federal aid available to students by rewarding colleges and universities that succeed in: Setting responsible tuition policy, offering relatively lower net tuition prices and/or restraining tuition growth; providing good value to students and families, offering quality education and training that prepares graduates to obtain employment and repay their loans; serving low-income students, enrolling and graduating relatively higher numbers of Pell eligible students” [Education Blueprint: An Economy Built to Last, White House, Accessed 04/15/12]ATTACKRomney Won’t Reveal Policy DetailsROMNEY ADVISER KEVIN MADDEN: ROMNEY WILL OFFER SPECIFICS IN THE DEBATESRomney Adviser Kevin Madden: “But He Will Offer Some More Specifics In The Debates -- Which Is Often Where These Things Come Out -- Under Direct Questioning On Specific Issues.” [Politico, 8/30/12]Romney Adviser Kevin Madden Said At The Debate “The Governor Is Going To Address [Issues] Comprehensively And He’s Going To Talk About The Specifics Of How It Would Help Households Keep More Money.” Romney adviser Kevin Madden spoke on the first presidential debate saying: “I think on issues like energy, on issues like healthcare, those are also issues that the governor is going to address comprehensively and he’s going to talk about the specifics of how it would help households keep more money and help, it’s going to help to help grow the entire economy.” [Andrea Mitchell Reports, MSNBC, 10/2/12]ROMNEY ADVISERS SAID IT WOULD BE SUICIDAL TO DETAIL HIS POLICY PLANSPolitico: “[Romney] Advisers Say The Campaign Has No Plans To Pivot From Its Previous View That Diving Into Details During A General-Election Race Would Be Suicidal.” [Politico, 8/17/12]Romney Adviser: “Campaigns That Are About Specifics, Particularly In Today’s Environment, Get Tripped Up.” [Politico, 8/17/12]Romney Adviser: The Romney Campaign Will Not Have A “Ryan-Budget Level Of Detail” Because It Would Be “Politically Unwise.” “Still, if you hoped that Romney’s selection of Ryan was going to touch off an epic war of ideas — maybe even with Ross-Perot-style charts and graphs — you’ll be badly disappointed. ‘What you’re going to see is a campaign that has clear direction, but not a Simpson-Bowles or Ryan-budget level of detail,’ the Romney adviser said. ‘It’s not only politically unwise to do that, but it’s not how the voters engage in a presidential campaign.’” [Politico, 8/17/12]Huffington Post Headline: “Romney Adviser: It's 'Politically Unwise' To Campaign In Specifics.” [Huffington Post, 8/17/12]ROMNEY SAID HE LEARNED FROM HIS CAMPAIGN AGAINST KENNEDY TO NOT REVEAL SPECIFICS BECAUSE OF POLITICAL RAMIFICATIONSRomney “Is Reluctant To Get Specific About The Programs He Would Like To Kill” Because “He Did This In His Bid For The Senate 18 Years Ago And Remembers The Political Ramifications.” ?“But Romney, ever cautious, is reluctant to get specific about the programs he would like to kill. He did this in his bid for the Senate 18 years ago and remembers the political ramifications. ‘One of the things I found in a short campaign against Ted Kennedy was that when I said, for instance, that I wanted to eliminate the Department of Education, that was used to suggest I don’t care about education,’ Romney recalled. ‘So I think it’s important for me to point out that I anticipate that there will be departments and agencies that will either be eliminated or combined with other agencies. So for instance, I anticipate that housing vouchers will be turned over to the states rather than be administered at the federal level, and so at this point I think of the programs to be eliminated or to be returned to the states, and we’ll see what consolidation opportunities exist as a result of those program eliminations. So will there be some that get eliminated or combined? The answer is yes, but I’m not going to give you a list right now.’” [Stephen Hayes, Weekly Standard, 4/2/12]Romney: “One Of The Things I Found In A Short Campaign Against Ted Kennedy Was That When I Said, For Instance, That I Wanted To Eliminate The Department Of Education, That Was Used To Suggest I Don’t Care About Education.” [Stephen Hayes, Weekly Standard, 4/2/12]ROMNEY’S OWN ADVISORS HAVE SAID HE WILL WAIT TO REVEAL HIS TRUE POSITIONS IN THE GENERAL ELECTIONEric Fehrnstrom – When Asked About Romney Moving “So Far To The Right” In The Republican Primary – Said: “I Think You Hit A Reset Button For The Fall Campaign. Everything Changes.It’s Almost Like An Etch-A-Sketch. You Can Kind Of Shake It Up And We Start All Over Again.”? FUGELSANG: “It's fair to say that John McCain was considerably a more moderate candidate than the ones that Governor Romney faces now. Is there a concern that the pressure from Santorum and Gingrich might force the Governor to tack so far to right it would hurt him with moderate voters in the general election?” FEHRNSTROM: “Well I think you hit a reset button for the fall campaign. Everything changes. It's almost like an etch-a-sketch. You can kind of shake it up and we start all over again.”? [Starting Point, CNN, 3/21/12]Gov. Bob Ehrlich Said Once Romney Hits The General Election Americans Will Be Reminded Of His “Real Views.”? MORGAN: “Obviously Governor Romney has got a problem in the polling with women. Not entirely surprising given that the social issue debates that have been raging in the Republican Party have been pretty negatively received. How does he rebuild trust in the female vote?”? EHRLICH:? “I think that's more a function of the Santorum campaign, quite frankly, and the Democrats using some of Senator Santorum's verbiage to their electoral advantage, to their partisan advantage.? I think when the general election -- again, when you have one on one general election and they see, again are reminded of Governor Romney's real views, that gender gap will dissipate rather quickly.”? [Piers Morgan, CNN, 4/3/12]Wall Street Journal: “The Romney Campaign Has Decided, At Least For The Moment, Not To Divulge Fresh Details Of Its Economic Platform, Campaign Officials Said. They Believe There Isn't Public Demand For Specifics And Worry New Information Could Be Used As A Weapon By The Obama Campaign, People Close To The Process Said.” “And while policy debates have flared briefly, including over Medicare, the Romney campaign has decided, at least for the moment, not to divulge fresh details of its economic platform, campaign officials said. They believe there isn't public demand for specifics and worry new information could be used as a weapon by the Obama campaign, people close to the process said.” [Wall Street Journal, 8/26/12]ROMNEY GAVE NO DETAILS IN THE FIRST PRESIDENTIAL DEBATEEzra Klein: In The Debate, Romney “Was Able To Hide In Those Pockets Of The Vagueness He Created” KLEIN: “Romney has a much vaguer policy agenda which has led to him getting attacked much more on being vague about what he's actually going to do. And tonight Romney was able to make it feel like it flipped and he was able to hide in those pockets of the vagueness he created.” [Ezra Klein, MSNBC Presidential Debate Coverage, 10/3/12]Reuters: “Romney Shed Little New Light On His Own [Health Care] Reform Agenda.” “But Romney shed little new light on his own reform agenda. Instead, he attacked Obama's healthcare law with shopworn Republican campaign themes. He repeated a claim - widely discredited by independent analysts - that the president would cut $716 billion from the Medicare program for the elderly and disabled. The alleged cut is the savings Obama gleaned from increases in payments to Medicare's healthcare providers and which Romney's running mate, Wisconsin congressman Paul Ryan, included in his own budget proposal as chairman of the House of Representatives Budget Committee.” [Reuters, 10/4/12]Reuters: Romney “Avoided A Direct Answer To Whether He Supports A Medicare ‘Voucher’ System.” “Romney also avoided a direct answer to whether he supports a Medicare ‘voucher’ system, a charge that Democrats have made since the summer in an attempt to erode vital Republican support among older Americans. ‘What I support is no change for current retirees and near retirees in Medicare, and the president supports taking $716 billion out of that program,’ said Romney, brushing off two attempts by moderator Jim Lehrer to get an answer on vouchers.”[Reuters, 10/4/12]POLITICAL REFORMPRO-POTUSPresident Obama Has Taken Action To Restore Transparency And Openness To Our Political SystemIN BOTH HIS ADMINISTRATION AND HIS CAMPAIGN, PRESIDENT OBAMA HAS TAKEN ACTION TO RESTORE TRANSPARENCY AND OPENNESS TO OUR POLITICAL SYSTEMThe Obama Administration Removed Lobbyists From Federal Advisory Panels In A “Far-Reaching Lobbying Rule Change” Intended To Curb K Street’s Influence. “Hundreds, if not thousands, of lobbyists are likely to be ejected from federal advisory panels as part of a little-noticed initiative by the Obama administration to curb K Street's influence in Washington, according to White House officials and lobbying experts. The new policy -- issued with little fanfare this fall by the White House ethics counsel -- may turn out to be the most far-reaching lobbying rule change so far from President Obama, who also has sought to restrict the ability of lobbyists to get jobs in his administration and to negotiate over stimulus contracts.”[Washington Post, 11/27/09]The Hill: The Obama Administration Has “Slowed The Revolving Door Between Government And The Private Sector.” “Since 2009, President Obama has sought to place several restrictions on lobbyists. Those moves won praise from watchdog groups, which said the White House was paying heed to the ethics and influence-peddling issues that Obama talked about on the campaign trail. The administration has slowed the revolving door between government and the private sector by forbidding lobbyists from taking jobs in the executive branch; banning individuals who have left the administration from then lobbying their ex-colleagues; and restricting lobbying on the stimulus package.” [The Hill, 10/12/11]Good Government Groups Said The Obama Administration Had Adopted “The Strongest And Most Comprehensive Lobbying, Ethics And Transparency Rules And Policies Ever Established By An Administration To Govern Its Own Activities." “The cumulative effect of the Administration's actions has been to adopt the strongest and most comprehensive lobbying, ethics and transparency rules and policies ever established by an Administration to govern its own activities.?The new rules and policies have begun the difficult process of changing the way business is done in Washington.?President Obama deserves recognition and high praise for the ethics, lobbying and transparency rules put in place for the Executive Branch during his first year in office.”?[A Report Card on the Obama Administration's Executive Branch Lobbying, Ethics and Transparency Reforms in 2009 Issued by Common Cause, Democracy 21, League of Women Voters and U.S. PIRG, 1/11/10]The 2012 Obama Campaign Does Not Take Contributions From PACs Or Federal Lobbyists. “The Obama campaign on Monday said that one million people have donated to the president's reelection campaign. A ticker on the Obama campaign website showed the campaign moving past the one million mark…Obama for America Press Secretary Ben LaBolt stressed that the campaign ‘rejects donations from special interest PACs and Washington lobbyists’ in a statement to CBS News. ‘Instead, we rely on contributions from Americans across the country,’ he said.” [CBS News, 10/17/11]President Obama Is The Only 2012 Candidate To Have Disclosed His Bundlers. “President Barack Obama discloses his best fund-raisers. The leading Republican 2012 presidential contenders refuse to reveal the names of their major fund-raisers, even though the last two GOP White House nominees — John McCain in 2008 and George Bush in 2004 — released the names of their “bundlers.” Obama will take some heat as the media and other groups — nonpartisan and partisan — put his bundlers under a microscope. The other candidates are keeping secret their bundlers. Why the need to disclose? Because to know the whole story when it comes to raising political cash — you have to know the names of the bundlers.” [Chicago Sun-Times, 7/22/11]President Obama has Brought Standards Of Ethics And Transparency To His Own CampaignPRESIDENT OBAMA HAS BROUGHT STANDARDS OF ETHICS AND TRANSPARENCY TO HIS OWN CAMPAIGNIN 2008, OBAMA FOR AMERICA REFUSED TO TAKE A DIME FROM FEDERAL LOBBYISTS OR SPECIAL-INTEREST PACS AND IS ALONE IN DOING IT NOWThe 2008 Obama Campaign Refused Contributions From PACs Or Lobbyists.?“Any penny-pinching?lobbyists?looking to save a few thousand dollars in the sure-to-break-records 2008 presidential race have the perfect candidate to throw their theoretical support behind: Sen. Barack?Obama?(D-Ill.). Not only has?Obama's?presidential exploratory committee said it will refuse all donations from political action committees, but it also is barring cash from registered federal?lobbyists.?Word has just started to spread among K Street's Democrats that when it comes to the candidate's coffers, they're off the hook…Dan Pfeiffer, a spokesman for?Obama's?exploratory committee, said the prohibition is not limited to Web donations. ‘The same criteria applies to all donations,’ he said, including old fashioned handwritten checks. Pfeiffer said he was not certain whether?Obama's?campaign also would turn away funds that?lobbyists?helped raise from their family members, friends and non-lobbyist?clients and colleagues or whether it applies to?lobbyists?who are registered at the state or local level.” [Roll Call, 1/24/07]?The 2012 Obama Campaign Does Not Take Contributions From PACs Or Federal Lobbyists. “The Obama campaign on Monday said that one million people have donated to the president's reelection campaign. A ticker on the Obama campaign website showed the campaign moving past the one million mark…Obama for America Press Secretary Ben LaBolt stressed that the campaign ‘rejects donations from special interest PACs and Washington lobbyists’ in a statement to CBS News. ‘Instead, we rely on contributions from Americans across the country,’ he said.” [CBS News, 10/17/11]Talking Points Memo: Romney Was Required To Disclose Bundlers Who Were Lobbyists, “People Whose Stated Jobs Is To Secure Favorable Treatment From The Federal Government.”?“There’s an added layer of irony. Romney is required by the FEC to release the names of bundlers who are also registered lobbyists — i.e. people whose stated job is to secure favorable treatment from the federal government. Many of them work in industries where Romney could give their clients a boost: Bundler Van Hipp works in military contracting, for example, and bundler Patrick Durkin lobbies for banks.” [Talking Points Memo,?7/16/12]OBAMA FOR AMERICA IS ALONE IN RELEASING A LIST OF BUNDLERSPresident Obama Is The Only 2012 Candidate To Have Disclosed His Bundlers. “President Barack Obama discloses his best fund-raisers. The leading Republican 2012 presidential contenders refuse to reveal the names of their major fund-raisers, even though the last two GOP White House nominees — John McCain in 2008 and George Bush in 2004 — released the names of their “bundlers.” Obama will take some heat as the media and other groups — nonpartisan and partisan — put his bundlers under a microscope. The other candidates are keeping secret their bundlers. Why the need to disclose? Because to know the whole story when it comes to raising political cash — you have to know the names of the bundlers.” [Chicago Sun-Times, 7/22/11]President Obama Called For Serious Consideration Of A Constitutional Amendment To Overturn Citizens UnitedPRESIDENT OBAMA HAS CALLED FOR REFORM TO END THE CORROSIVE INFLUENCE OF MONEY IN POLITICSPresident Obama Called For Serious Consideration Of “Mobilizing A Constitutional Amendment Process To Overturn Citizens United.” “In a chat with the website Reddit, President Obama called for serious look at a constitutional amendment to reverse the Supreme Court's Citizens United ruling. ‘Over the longer term, I think we need to seriously consider mobilizing a constitutional amendment process to overturn Citizens United (assuming the Supreme Court doesn't revisit it). Even if the amendment process falls short, it can shine a spotlight of the super-PAC phenomenon and help apply pressure for change,’ Obama wrote.” [Politico, 8/29/12]President Obama Called On Congress To Pass The DISCLOSE Act So American Voters Wouldn’t Be Drowned Out By Millions In Secret, Special Interest Advertising.? “At a time of such challenge for America, we can’t afford these political games.? Millions of Americans are struggling to get by, and their voices shouldn’t be drowned out by millions of dollars in secret, special interest advertising.? The American people’s voices should be heard.? A vote to oppose these reforms is nothing less than a vote to allow corporate and special interest takeovers of our elections.? It is damaging to our democracy…We’ve got a similar opportunity to prevent special interests from gaining even more clout in Washington.? This should not be a Democratic issue or a Republican issue.? This is an issue that goes to whether or not we’re going to have a government that works for ordinary Americans; a government of, by and for the people.” [Remarks on the DISCLOSE Act, 7/26/10]The Obama Administration Put In Place The Toughest Ethics Rules In HistoryTHE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION PUT IN PLACE THE TOUGHEST ETHICS RULES IN HISTORYTHE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION BANNED GIFTS FROM LOBBYISTS AND BARRED LOBBYISTS FROM BEING APPOINTED TO FEDERAL ADVISORY PANELSObama Banned Lobbyists From Giving Gifts To Members Of His Administration.?"In a first-day flurry of activity, President Barack Obama on Wednesday set up shop in the Oval Office, summoned advisers to begin dealing with war and recession and ordered new lobbying rules for 'a clean break from business as usual.'...Obama's new lobbying rules will ban aides from trying to influence the administration when they leave his staff. Those already hired will be banned from working on matters they have previously lobbied on, or to approach agencies that they once targeted. The rules also ban lobbyists from giving gifts of any size to any member of his administration." [NBC News,?1/21/09]President Obama Signed An Executive Order Sharply Restricting Lobbyist Jobs In The Administration. “Let's count the ways President Obama's operation has shown its disdain for Washington lobbyists. In 2007, the Obama for America campaign told federally registered lobbyists it wouldn't accept their contributions. That was really OK with a lot of them. But then, after Election Day, the Obama organization restricted the roles lobbyists could play in the transition. The day after Obama was sworn in, he signed an executive order that sharply restricts lobbyists' job prospects in the administration. Under the order, an agency can't hire a lobbyist to work in his or her area of expertise unless the White House grants a waiver.” [National Public Radio, 5/5/09]The Obama Administration Removed Lobbyists From Federal Advisory Panels In A “Far-Reaching Lobbying Rule Change” Intended To Curb K Street’s Influence. “Hundreds, if not thousands, of lobbyists are likely to be ejected from federal advisory panels as part of a little-noticed initiative by the Obama administration to curb K Street's influence in Washington, according to White House officials and lobbying experts. The new policy -- issued with little fanfare this fall by the White House ethics counsel -- may turn out to be the most far-reaching lobbying rule change so far from President Obama, who also has sought to restrict the ability of lobbyists to get jobs in his administration and to negotiate over stimulus contracts.”[Washington Post, 11/27/09]The Hill: The Obama Administration Has “Slowed The Revolving Door Between Government And The Private Sector.” “Since 2009, President Obama has sought to place several restrictions on lobbyists. Those moves won praise from watchdog groups, which said the White House was paying heed to the ethics and influence-peddling issues that Obama talked about on the campaign trail. The administration has slowed the revolving door between government and the private sector by forbidding lobbyists from taking jobs in the executive branch; banning individuals who have left the administration from then lobbying their ex-colleagues; and restricting lobbying on the stimulus package.” [The Hill, 10/12/11]Good Government Groups Said The Obama Administration Had Adopted “The Strongest And Most Comprehensive Lobbying, Ethics And Transparency Rules And Policies Ever Established By An Administration To Govern Its Own Activities." “The cumulative effect of the Administration's actions has been to adopt the strongest and most comprehensive lobbying, ethics and transparency rules and policies ever established by an Administration to govern its own activities.?The new rules and policies have begun the difficult process of changing the way business is done in Washington.?President Obama deserves recognition and high praise for the ethics, lobbying and transparency rules put in place for the Executive Branch during his first year in office.”?[A Report Card on the Obama Administration's Executive Branch Lobbying, Ethics and Transparency Reforms in 2009 Issued by Common Cause, Democracy 21, League of Women Voters and U.S. PIRG, 1/11/10]PRESIDENT OBAMA BARRED TOP WHITE HOUSE AIDES FROM BECOMING LOBBYISTS WHEN THEY LEAVE THE ADMINISTRATIONPresident Obama Barred Appointees Who Left Government From Lobbying High Level Officials Across The Entire Executive Branch For As Long As He’s In Office. “President Barack Obama issued a ground breaking Executive Order today that establishes unprecedented new rules to govern the role of lobbyists in the Obama Administration.The ethics Executive Order issued by the Obama Administration goes further than any previous action taken by a President to restrict the ability of presidential appointees who serve in the Executive Branch from coming back to lobby the Administration, and also to limit the role of lobbyists coming in to serve in the Administration…The new Executive Order, for the first time, prohibits presidential appointees who leave the government from coming back to lobby high level executive branch officials throughout the entire government, not just in their own department or agency, and from doing so for the entire period that President Obama serves as president. This includes a second term if the President is reelected.It requires presidential appointees entering the Obama Administration to make a clear choice: if they want to serve in important policy positions in the Administration they must be willing to give up their ability to capitalize on their government jobs after leaving by lobbying the Obama Administration.” [Democracy21, 1/21/09]ON HIS FIRST DAY IN OFFICE, PRESIDENT OBAMA TOOK MAJOR STEPS TO CLOSE THE REVOLVING DOOR THAT CARRIES LOBBYISTS IN AND OUT OF GOVERNMENTPresident Obama Signed An Executive Order Sharply Restricting Lobbyist Jobs In The Administration. “Let's count the ways President Obama's operation has shown its disdain for Washington lobbyists. In 2007, the Obama for America campaign told federally registered lobbyists it wouldn't accept their contributions. That was really OK with a lot of them. But then, after Election Day, the Obama organization restricted the roles lobbyists could play in the transition. The day after Obama was sworn in, he signed an executive order that sharply restricts lobbyists' job prospects in the administration. Under the order, an agency can't hire a lobbyist to work in his or her area of expertise unless the White House grants a waiver.” [NPR, 5/5/09]PRESIDENT OBAMA SUPPORTS LEGISLATION BANNING LOBBYISTS FROM BUNDLING CONTRIBUTIONSIn 2012 State Of The Union, President Obama Called For Campaign Finance Reform To End The Corrosive Influence Of Money In Politics, Including Barring Bundlers From Lobbying Congress. “Some of this has to do with the corrosive influence of money in politics.? So together, let’s take some steps to fix that.? Send me a bill that bans insider trading by members of Congress; I will sign it tomorrow.? (Applause.)? Let’s limit any elected official from owning stocks in industries they impact.? Let’s make sure people who bundle campaign contributions for Congress can’t lobby Congress, and vice versa -- an idea that has bipartisan support, at least outside of Washington.” [State of the Union, 1/24/12]CONTRASTPresident Obama Called On Congress To Pass The DISCLOSE Act, Which Ryan Voted AgainstPRESIDENT OBAMA CALLED ON CONGRESS TO PASS THE DISCLOSE ACT President Obama Called On Congress To Pass The DISCLOSE Act So American Voters Wouldn’t Be Drowned Out By Millions In Secret, Special Interest Advertising.? “At a time of such challenge for America, we can’t afford these political games.? Millions of Americans are struggling to get by, and their voices shouldn’t be drowned out by millions of dollars in secret, special interest advertising.? The American people’s voices should be heard.? A vote to oppose these reforms is nothing less than a vote to allow corporate and special interest takeovers of our elections.? It is damaging to our democracy…We’ve got a similar opportunity to prevent special interests from gaining even more clout in Washington.? This should not be a Democratic issue or a Republican issue.? This is an issue that goes to whether or not we’re going to have a government that works for ordinary Americans; a government of, by and for the people.” [Remarks on the DISCLOSE Act, 7/26/10]RYAN VOTED AGAINST THE DISCLOSE ACT, WHICH WAS INTENDED, IN PART, TO LIMIT NEWLY LEGALIZED CAMPAIGN SPENDINGRyan Voted Against The DISCLOSE Act, Which Established Reporting Requirements For Campaign-Related Contributions By Corporations, Unions, Or Interest Groups. In 2010, Ryan voted against a bill that would establish new reporting requirements for corporations, unions and other interest groups for campaign-related activities. It would prohibit corporations that are foreign-controlled or have received a specified amount of government assistance from making expenditures in political campaigns. As amended, it would exempt from some identification disclosure rules certain charitable organizations as well as organizations that are at least 10 years old, have at least 500,000 dues-paying members, have members in each state and receive no more than 15 percent of their funding from corporations and unions. The bill passed 219-206. [HR 5175, Vote #391, 6/24/10; CQ Floor Votes]Ryan: “The DISCLOSE Act Unconstitutionally Empowers Congress To Pick Winners And Losers With Respect To Free Speech.” “Congress should not be in the business of earmarking the First Amendment. The DISCLOSE Act unconstitutionally empowers Congress to pick winners and losers with respect to free speech, drawing clear lines between those groups and organizations that are able to easily participate in our elections and those that are not.” [Rep. Paul Ryan press release, 6/24/10]Ryan: “If We Want To Reduce The Role Of Special Interests Groups In Government, We Should Combat The Overreach And Influence Of Government Rather Than Combat The Constitution Itself.” “If we want to reduce the role of special interests groups in government, we should combat the overreach and influence of government rather than combat the Constitution itself. By limiting the government’s influence over our lives, we can reduce the flow of money into politics. Regrettably, the Majority took the opposite approach and proceeded with a bill that serves the interests of their own party as opposed to the interests of the American people.” [Rep. Paul Ryan press release, 6/24/10]The Obama Administration Put In Place The Toughest Ethics Rules In HistoryTHE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION PUT IN PLACE THE TOUGHEST ETHICS RULES IN HISTORYPolitico: “President Barack Obama’s Gone Further Than Any President To Keep Lobbyists Out Of The White House – Even Signing Executive Orders To Do It.” [Politico, 10/15/12]THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION BANNED GIFTS FROM LOBBYISTS AND BARRED LOBBYISTS FROM BEING APPOINTED TO FEDERAL ADVISORY PANELSObama Banned Lobbyists From Giving Gifts To Members Of His Administration.?"In a first-day flurry of activity, President Barack Obama on Wednesday set up shop in the Oval Office, summoned advisers to begin dealing with war and recession and ordered new lobbying rules for 'a clean break from business as usual.'...Obama's new lobbying rules will ban aides from trying to influence the administration when they leave his staff. Those already hired will be banned from working on matters they have previously lobbied on, or to approach agencies that they once targeted. The rules also ban lobbyists from giving gifts of any size to any member of his administration." [NBC News,?1/21/09]President Obama Signed An Executive Order Sharply Restricting Lobbyist Jobs In The Administration. “Let's count the ways President Obama's operation has shown its disdain for Washington lobbyists. In 2007, the Obama for America campaign told federally registered lobbyists it wouldn't accept their contributions. That was really OK with a lot of them. But then, after Election Day, the Obama organization restricted the roles lobbyists could play in the transition. The day after Obama was sworn in, he signed an executive order that sharply restricts lobbyists' job prospects in the administration. Under the order, an agency can't hire a lobbyist to work in his or her area of expertise unless the White House grants a waiver.” [National Public Radio, 5/5/09]The Obama Administration Removed Lobbyists From Federal Advisory Panels In A “Far-Reaching Lobbying Rule Change” Intended To Curb K Street’s Influence. “Hundreds, if not thousands, of lobbyists are likely to be ejected from federal advisory panels as part of a little-noticed initiative by the Obama administration to curb K Street's influence in Washington, according to White House officials and lobbying experts. The new policy -- issued with little fanfare this fall by the White House ethics counsel -- may turn out to be the most far-reaching lobbying rule change so far from President Obama, who also has sought to restrict the ability of lobbyists to get jobs in his administration and to negotiate over stimulus contracts.”[Washington Post, 11/27/09]The Hill: The Obama Administration Has “Slowed The Revolving Door Between Government And The Private Sector.” “Since 2009, President Obama has sought to place several restrictions on lobbyists. Those moves won praise from watchdog groups, which said the White House was paying heed to the ethics and influence-peddling issues that Obama talked about on the campaign trail. The administration has slowed the revolving door between government and the private sector by forbidding lobbyists from taking jobs in the executive branch; banning individuals who have left the administration from then lobbying their ex-colleagues; and restricting lobbying on the stimulus package.” [The Hill, 10/12/11]Good Government Groups Said The Obama Administration Had Adopted “The Strongest And Most Comprehensive Lobbying, Ethics And Transparency Rules And Policies Ever Established By An Administration To Govern Its Own Activities." “The cumulative effect of the Administration's actions has been to adopt the strongest and most comprehensive lobbying, ethics and transparency rules and policies ever established by an Administration to govern its own activities.?The new rules and policies have begun the difficult process of changing the way business is done in Washington.?President Obama deserves recognition and high praise for the ethics, lobbying and transparency rules put in place for the Executive Branch during his first year in office.”?[A Report Card on the Obama Administration's Executive Branch Lobbying, Ethics and Transparency Reforms in 2009 Issued by Common Cause, Democracy 21, League of Women Voters and U.S. PIRG, 1/11/10]PRESIDENT OBAMA BARRED TOP WHITE HOUSE AIDES FROM BECOMING LOBBYISTS WHEN THEY LEAVE THE ADMINISTRATIONPresident Obama Barred Appointees Who Left Government From Lobbying High Level Officials Across The Entire Executive Branch For As Long As He’s In Office. “President Barack Obama issued a ground breaking Executive Order today that establishes unprecedented new rules to govern the role of lobbyists in the Obama Administration.The ethics Executive Order issued by the Obama Administration goes further than any previous action taken by a President to restrict the ability of presidential appointees who serve in the Executive Branch from coming back to lobby the Administration, and also to limit the role of lobbyists coming in to serve in the Administration…The new Executive Order, for the first time, prohibits presidential appointees who leave the government from coming back to lobby high level executive branch officials throughout the entire government, not just in their own department or agency, and from doing so for the entire period that President Obama serves as president. This includes a second term if the President is reelected.It requires presidential appointees entering the Obama Administration to make a clear choice: if they want to serve in important policy positions in the Administration they must be willing to give up their ability to capitalize on their government jobs after leaving by lobbying the Obama Administration.” [Democracy21, 1/21/09]ON HIS FIRST DAY IN OFFICE, PRESIDENT OBAMA TOOK MAJOR STEPS TO CLOSE THE REVOLVING DOOR THAT CARRIES LOBBYISTS IN AND OUT OF GOVERNMENTPresident Obama Signed An Executive Order Sharply Restricting Lobbyist Jobs In The Administration. “Let's count the ways President Obama's operation has shown its disdain for Washington lobbyists. In 2007, the Obama for America campaign told federally registered lobbyists it wouldn't accept their contributions. That was really OK with a lot of them. But then, after Election Day, the Obama organization restricted the roles lobbyists could play in the transition. The day after Obama was sworn in, he signed an executive order that sharply restricts lobbyists' job prospects in the administration. Under the order, an agency can't hire a lobbyist to work in his or her area of expertise unless the White House grants a waiver.” [NPR, 5/5/09]A ROMNEY ADMINISTRATION WOULD RE-OPEN THE LOBBYIST REVOLVING DOORPolitico: “Industry Insiders Believe That Mitt Romney Will Unshackle The Revolving Door And Give Lobbyists A Shot At The Government Jobs Their Democratic Counterparts Have Been Denied For The Past Four Years.”“President Barack Obama’s gone further than any president to keep lobbyists out of the White House — even signing executive orders to do it. But the mood on K Street is brightening. Industry insiders believe that Mitt Romney will unshackle the revolving door and give lobbyists a shot at the government jobs their Democratic counterparts have been denied for the past four years, a dozen Republican lobbyists said in conversations with POLITICO.” [Politico, 10/15/12]McCormick Group’s Ivan Adler: “There's No Question This Will Be A CEO President Who Will Greatly Valuate The Contribution Of People In Business Versus Academia. There Will Be A 180 Degree Switch With A Romney Administration. The Welcome Mat Will Be Put Out.” [Politico, 10/15/12]Politico: “Some Of The Highest-Level Positions In A Potential Romney Administration Are Expected Be Filled By Former Lobbyists And Washington Insiders.” [Politico, 10/15/12]Many Senior Romney Aids Are “Former Lobbyists” Who Would Expect To Fill The “Highest-Level Positions In A Potential Romney Administration,” Including: Mike Leavitt, Kevin Madden, Ron Kaufman, Drew Maloney.“Some of the highest-level positions in a potential Romney administration are expected be filled by former lobbyists and Washington insiders. Health care consultant Mike Leavitt, who served as the head of the Environmental Protection Agency for Bush, is leading Romney’s transition effort. He’s considered a shoo-in for either White House chief of staff or Treasury Secretary. Campaign spokesman Kevin Madden, of JDAFrontline, is expected to get the job of White House spokesman. Other senior campaign advisers are former lobbyists, as well, including Ron Kaufman, a former lobbyist at Dutko Worldwide, and Drew Maloney, who left Ogilvy Government Relations to lead Romney's congressional outreach.” [Politico, 10/15/12]Politico: “Romney's Campaign Has Also Relied Heavily On K Streeters To Organize High-Dollar Fundraisers, Including David Tamasi Of Rasky Baerlein Strategic Communications, Jack Gerard Of The American Petroleum Institute, Wayne Berman And Mark Isakowitz Of Fierce, Isakowitz & Blalock.” [Politico, 10/15/12]ATTACKRomney Thinks Corporations Are People And Opposes Campaign Finance ReformROMNEY: “CORPORATIONS ARE PEOPLE”Romney: “Corporations Are People, My Friend.” “Romney -- standing on hay bales at the Des Moines Register’s “Presidential Soap Box” on opening day of the Iowa State Fair -- told a hostile questioner: ‘[I]f we are ultimately … going to be able to balance our budget and not spend more than we take in, we have to make sure that the promises we make in Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare are promises we can keep. And there are various ways of doing that. One is we could raise taxes on people. That's not the way – ‘? Q: ‘Corporations! Corporations! Corporations!’ ROMNEY: ‘Corporations are people, my friend. We could raise taxes on – ‘ Q: ‘No, they're not.’ ROMNEY: ‘Of course they are. Everything corporations earn ultimately goes to people. … Where do you think it goes?’? Q: ‘It goes into their pockets.’? ROMNEY: ‘Whose pockets? Whose pockets? … [H]uman beings, my friend.’” [Romney, Iowa State Fair Soapbox, 8/11/11]ROMNEY PRAISED CITIZENS UNITEDRomney Said He Thought Citizens Untied “Was A Correct Decision. I Support Their Decision.” “Romney, speaking to a local New Hampshire paper's editorial board, said he supported the January 2010 ruling that decided political spending from corporations is speech protected under the First Amendment. Corporations can now pump money into groups to run ads in supporting or against a candidate. ‘I'm not wild about the idea of corporations making political contributions as a concept,’ Romney told the Portsmouth Herald. ‘I think their decision was a correct decision. I support their decision. I wish we could find a way to get money out of politics. I haven't found a way to do that.’” [International Business Times, Portsmouth Herald Editorial Board, 11/4/11]Romney Said The Justices Applied The Law Evenly As “Unions, For Instance, Can Make Political Contributions But Other Corporations Can’t.” “He said that the five justices in the majority based their ruling on the U.S. Constitution and applied the law evenly, arguing that ‘you can't say some corporations -- unions, for instance -- can make political contributions but other corporations can't.’” [International Business Times, Portsmouth Herald Editorial Board, 11/4/11]RYAN VOTED AGAINST THE BIPARTISAN, MCCAIN-FEINGOLD CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM BILLRyan Voted Against McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform Bill. In 2002, Ryan voted against the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform bill that banned soft money contributions to political parties and placed limits on individual contributions. The bill also regulated issue advocacy advertising, barring corporations, labor unions, and nonprofits from airing ads that included a candidate’s name within 60 days of a general election or 30 days of a primary. It also regulated coordination with federal candidates and political parties, independent expenditures made separately from a candidate, and other election law changes. The bill passed 240-189. [HR 2356, Vote #34, 2/14/02; OMB Watch, 2/13/02]RYAN VOTED AGAINST THE DISCLOSE ACT, WHICH WAS INTENDED, IN PART, TO LIMIT NEWLY LEGALIZED CAMPAIGN SPENDINGRyan Voted Against The DISCLOSE Act, Which Established Reporting Requirements For Campaign-Related Contributions By Corporations, Unions, Or Interest Groups. In 2010, Ryan voted against a bill that would establish new reporting requirements for corporations, unions and other interest groups for campaign-related activities. It would prohibit corporations that are foreign-controlled or have received a specified amount of government assistance from making expenditures in political campaigns. As amended, it would exempt from some identification disclosure rules certain charitable organizations as well as organizations that are at least 10 years old, have at least 500,000 dues-paying members, have members in each state and receive no more than 15 percent of their funding from corporations and unions. The bill passed 219-206. [HR 5175, Vote #391, 6/24/10; CQ Floor Votes]Ryan: “The DISCLOSE Act Unconstitutionally Empowers Congress To Pick Winners And Losers With Respect To Free Speech.” “Congress should not be in the business of earmarking the First Amendment. The DISCLOSE Act unconstitutionally empowers Congress to pick winners and losers with respect to free speech, drawing clear lines between those groups and organizations that are able to easily participate in our elections and those that are not.” [Rep. Paul Ryan press release, 6/24/10]ROMNEY REFUSES TO LIST ALL OF THE NAMES OF HIS BUNDLERS – PREVENTING VOTERS FROM KNOWING WHO WIELDS INFLUENCE INSIDE HIS CAMPAIGNRomney “Is The First Winning Candidate Of Either Party In More Than A Decade” Not To Disclose His Bundlers. “In his campaign, Romney has limited the release of documents and information that in the past often have become part of the public record.? He is the first winning candidate of either party in more than a decade to refuse to give the public a list of the people who tap their business and social networks to raise tens of thousands of dollars for him. In 2008, Obama and McCain both released lists of bundlers. Bush released his in 2000 and 2004.” [Associated Press, 6/11/12]Romney Refused To Identify “Bundlers” Which “PreventsVoters From Knowing Who Wields Influence Inside The GOP Frontrunner's Campaign And How Their Interests Might Benefit If He Is Elected.” “Unlike President Barack Obama, Romney's campaign will not identify his major fundraisers, and federal law doesn't require him to. The AP identified several of Romney's ‘bundlers’ through interviews, finance records, event invitations and other publicity about campaign events. The lack of transparency by the Romney campaign prevents voters from knowing who wields influence inside the GOP frontrunner's campaign and how their interests might benefit if he is elected.” [Associated Press, 3/27/12]Romney’s Secrecy On Bundlers “Is Particularly Egregious Given That He Understood The Value Of Transparency Sufficiently To Disclose His Bundlers In 2008.” “Yet this year, the Republican candidates have so far declined to publish the same type of list. Mitt Romney’s secrecy is particularly egregious, given that he understood the value of transparency sufficiently to disclose his bundlers in 2008. This cycle he has raised more than $18 million, four times the amount of any of his competitors. Indeed, he brags of having vacuumed up more than $10 million in a single day. How did he do this? By tapping bundlers, of course. But he won’t tell us who they are.” [Editorial, Washington Post, 7/23/11]Romney Is Supported By The Same Industries His Policies Would BenefitA ROMNEY ADMINISTRATION WOULD RE-OPEN THE LOBBYIST REVOLVING DOORPolitico: “Industry Insiders Believe That Mitt Romney Will Unshackle The Revolving Door And Give Lobbyists A Shot At The Government Jobs Their Democratic Counterparts Have Been Denied For The Past Four Years.”“President Barack Obama’s gone further than any president to keep lobbyists out of the White House — even signing executive orders to do it. But the mood on K Street is brightening. Industry insiders believe that Mitt Romney will unshackle the revolving door and give lobbyists a shot at the government jobs their Democratic counterparts have been denied for the past four years, a dozen Republican lobbyists said in conversations with POLITICO.” [Politico, 10/15/12]McCormick Group’s Ivan Adler: “There's No Question This Will Be A CEO President Who Will Greatly Valuate The Contribution Of People In Business Versus Academia. There Will Be A 180 Degree Switch With A Romney Administration. The Welcome Mat Will Be Put Out.” [Politico, 10/15/12]Politico: “Some Of The Highest-Level Positions In A Potential Romney Administration Are Expected Be Filled By Former Lobbyists And Washington Insiders.” [Politico, 10/15/12]Many Senior Romney Aids Are “Former Lobbyists” Who Would Expect To Fill The “Highest-Level Positions In A Potential Romney Administration,” Including: Mike Leavitt, Kevin Madden, Ron Kaufman, Drew Maloney.“Some of the highest-level positions in a potential Romney administration are expected be filled by former lobbyists and Washington insiders. Health care consultant Mike Leavitt, who served as the head of the Environmental Protection Agency for Bush, is leading Romney’s transition effort. He’s considered a shoo-in for either White House chief of staff or Treasury Secretary. Campaign spokesman Kevin Madden, of JDAFrontline, is expected to get the job of White House spokesman. Other senior campaign advisers are former lobbyists, as well, including Ron Kaufman, a former lobbyist at Dutko Worldwide, and Drew Maloney, who left Ogilvy Government Relations to lead Romney's congressional outreach.” [Politico, 10/15/12]Politico: “Romney's Campaign Has Also Relied Heavily On K Streeters To Organize High-Dollar Fundraisers, Including David Tamasi Of Rasky Baerlein Strategic Communications, Jack Gerard Of The American Petroleum Institute, Wayne Berman And Mark Isakowitz Of Fierce, Isakowitz & Blalock.” [Politico, 10/15/12]ROMNEY AND HIS SUPER PAC HAVE TAKEN MILLIONS FROM THE ENERGY INDUSTRY…Romney For President Has Received $4,572,008 From The Energy And Natural Resources Sector. [Center For Responsive Politics, , accessed 9/23/12]Romney Has Raised $2,384,904 From Oil & Gas Interests As A 2012 Presidential Candidate. [Center For Responsive Politics, , accessed 9/23/12]Restore Our Future Has Received $7,785,018.45 From The Energy Industry. [FEC, Accessed 8/21/12]Restore Our Future Has Received $6,525,018.45 From Oil And Gas Interests. [FEC, Accessed 8/21/12]Restore Our Future Has Received $4,000,000 From The Coal Industry. [FEC, Accessed 8/21/12]…AND HE WOULD RETAIN $4 BILLION A YEAR IN OIL AND GAS SUBSIDIESRomney Would “Keep Tax Incentives And Tax Breaks For Oil And Gas Drilling. These Amount To About $4 Billion A Year.” [Washington Post,?9/11/12]ROMNEY HAS TAKEN MONEY FROM HEDGE FUND AND PRIVATE EQUITY MANAGERS…8/27/12: Romney Has Raised $2.27 Million From Executives At Private Equity And Investment Firms. “Private equity executives have largely lined up behind the presidential candidacy of one of its pioneers, Bain Capital founder Mitt Romney, shattering the industry’s previous political contribution records as the industry prepares for future battles over taxes and regulation. The industry’s 2012 total contributions have gone far beyond previous totals. Contributions are more than $38 million so far this cycle, up from $28.2 million in 2008 and $9.5 million in 2004, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, a research group that tracks political contributions and operates . It’s clear whom the industry is favoring at the moment. President Barack Obama received $671,349 from executives at private equity and investment firms, compared with $2.27 million for Mr. Romney.” [Wall Street Journal, 8/27/12]Hedge Funds Employees Have Contributed $853,425 To Romney For President. [Center For Responsive Politics, , accessed 9/23/12]…AND HE HAS OPPOSED CLOSING THE CARRIED INTEREST LOOPHOLERomney Defended The Carried Interest Loophole By Saying, “You Don't Single Out One Kind Of Capital Gain For Different Treatment From Other Types Of Capital Gains.”?When asked about his position on carried interest being taxed at the capital gains rate, Romney said: “If it--if it's actually a capital investment, and it's fairly priced at the time people invest in it, and then it rises in value as a capital gain, then you treat it as a capital gain. If someone turns it into what looks like ordinary income or a bonus, why then, obviously, it's not a capital gain. But to--you don't single out one kind of capital gain for different treatment from other types of capital gains.” [Kudlow Report, CNBC, 1/26/12]ROMNEY HAS TAKEN MILLIONS FROM WALL STREET…Romney’s Campaign Has Raised $11,971,926 From The Securities And Investment Industry So Far This Cycle. [Center For Responsive Politics, , accessed 9/23/12]9/23/12: The Top Donor Groups To The Romney Campaign Were Goldman Sachs, Bank Of America, JPMorgan Chase, Morgan Stanley, Credit Suisse, Citigroup, And Barclays. [Center For Responsive Politics, , accessed 9/23/12]…AND HE WOULD ROLL BACK WALL STREET REFORM AND LET WALL STREET GO BACK TO WRITING ITS OWN RULESRomney Pledge To Repeal Dodd-Frank But Has Been Silent On How He Would Prevent Wall Street From Engaging In The Risky Practices That Helped Cause The 2008 Financial Crisis. “Republican Mitt Romney is pledging, if he is elected president, to repeal the Dodd-Frank financial regulations, a position favored by donors on Wall Street who have sent millions the candidate’s way. But he is nearly silent on how - without the regulation - he would prevent Wall Street from once again engaging in the risky practices that helped cause the 2008 financial crisis.” [Boston Globe, 5/2/12]ROLE OF GOVERNMENTPRO-POTUSFactcheckers: The Claim That The Obama Administration Has Ordered Schools To Hire People Is FalseINDEPENDENT FACT-CHECKERS HAVE RATED THIS CLAIM FALSETampa Bay Times Politifact: “Even Participants In The Case Say It Had Nothing To Do With Ordering Schools To Hire People.” “The only basis for this claim is a 2012 Supreme Court decision involving a teacher who said she lost her job in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. She sued to get her job at a private Christian school back… But even participants in the case say it had nothing to do with ordering schools to hire people. We rate this claim False.” [Tampa Bay Times, Politifact, 9/27/12]Tampa Bay Times Politifact Rated This Claim “False.” [Tampa Bay Times, Politifact, 9/27/12]IN HOSANNA-TABOR EVANGELICAL LUTHERAN CHURCH AND SCHOOL V. EEOC, THE SUPREME COURT PROVIDED A “MINISTERIAL EXCEPTION” TO EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION LAWS, AND THE CASE WAS ORIGINALLY FILED BY PRESIDENT BUSH’S EEOCThe Supreme Court Ruled That Churches And Other Religious Groups Must Be Free To Choose And Dismiss Their Leaders Without Government Interference. “In what may be its most significant?religious liberty decision?in two decades, the?Supreme Court?on Wednesday for the first time recognized a ‘ministerial exception’ to employment discrimination laws, saying that churches and other religious groups must be free to choose and dismiss their leaders without government interference.” [New York Times, 1/12/12]Jan. 2012: In Hosanna-Tabor Church V. EEOC Ruling, Supreme Court Recognized “Ministerial Exception” To Employment Discrimination Laws. “In what may be its most significant?religious liberty decision?in two decades, the?Supreme Court?on Wednesday for the first time recognized a ‘ministerial exception’ to employment discrimination laws, saying that churches and other religious groups must be free to choose and dismiss their leaders without government interference…The case,?Hosanna-Tabor Church v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, No. 10-553, was brought by Cheryl Perich, who had been a teacher at a school in Redford, Mich., that was part of the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, the second-largest Lutheran denomination in the United States. Ms. Perich said she was fired for pursuing an employment discrimination claim based on a disability, narcolepsy.” [NYT, 1/11/12]In 2005, The Plaintiff In The Hosanna-Tabor Case Filed Her Complaint With Bush’s EEOC, Which Supported Her Position And Filed Suit In Federal Court Against The Church. ?“On May 15, 2005, Perich filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) alleging that Hosanna-Tabor’s actions violated the Americans with Disabilities Act. The EEOC and Perich then filed suit in federal district court alleging that the church had retaliated against Perich – in violation of the ADA – by rescinding her call after it learned that she had a disability and was contemplating legal action.?On Oct. 23, 2008, the district court decided against Perich, ruling that since she had been called as a commissioned minister, her firing was subject to the ministerial exception and thus was not within the court’s purview. On March 2, 2010, this decision was overturned by the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which ruled that Perich was not covered by the ministerial exception because most of her duties – teaching nonreligious subjects – were secular. The church then appealed the ruling to the Supreme Court, which on March 28, 2011, agreed to hear the case.” [Pew Forum On Religion & Public Life, 1/11/12]Romney’s Culture Of Dependency Attack Is False: President Obama Has A Plan To Get Americans Back To Work And Support Small BusinessesPRESIDENT OBAMA HAS A PLAN TO CREATE JOBS AND HAS SUPPORTED SMALL BUSINESS GROWTHAN INDEPENDENT ECONOMIST ESTIMATED THAT THE AMERICAN JOBS ACT WOULD ADD AS MANY AS 1.9 MILLION JOBS AND TWO PERCENTAGE POINTS TO GDP—BUT REPUBLICANS BLOCKED ITMoody’s Analytics Estimated That The American Jobs Act Would Add 1.9 Million Jobs, Add 2 Percentage Points To GDP, And Reduce Unemployment By A Percentage Point If Fully Implemented. “President Obama's jobs proposal would help stabilize confidence and keep the U.S. from sliding back into recession. The plan would add 2 percentage points to GDP growth next year, add 1.9 million jobs, and cut the unemployment rate by a percentage point.” [Moody’s Analytics, 9/9/2011]New York Times Editorial Board: “The Unanimous Decision By Senate Republicans On Tuesday?To Filibuster And Thus Kill?President Obama’s Jobs Bill Was Still A Breathtaking Act Of Economic Vandalism.” “It was all predicted, but the unanimous decision by Senate Republicans on Tuesday?to filibuster and thus kill?President Obama’s jobs bill was still a breathtaking act of economic vandalism. There are 14 million people out of work, wages are falling, poverty is rising, and a second recession may be blowing in, but not a single Republican would even allow debate on a sound plan to cut middle-class taxes and increase public-works spending.” [Editorial, New York Times, 10/12/11]The Atlantic: Bloomberg Surveyed Economists On The President’s Jobs Act And Found Them To Be “Overwhelmingly Positive On the Jobs Act, Predicting Anywhere From A 1.3 To A 2 Percent Boost To The Nation’s Economy. “If President Barack Obama hasn't read Bloomberg yet on his way through the American West to?flog his American Jobs Act, his press people have surely stuck it in his reading list. The?news service surveyed economists?and found them to be overwhelmingly positive on the jobs act, predicting anywhere from a 1.3 percent to a 2 percent boost to the nation's economy if it passes, preventing a recession in 2012.” [Atlantic, 9/28/11]PRESIDENT OBAMA HAS A PLAN TO CREATE ONE MILLION NEW MANUFACTURING JOBS BY THE END OF 2016, BUILDING ON A RECENT TREND OF INSOURCINGPresident Obama Set A Goal Of Creating One Million New Manufacturing Jobs Over The Next Four Years.?“President Barack Obama will set a goal of creating 1 million new manufacturing jobs over the next four years and doubling exports during the next two years, according to?excerpts of his speech?to the Democratic National Convention released Thursday.” [CNN,?9/6/12]The Boston Consulting Group Found That 37 Percent Of Companies Surveyed Planned To Reshore Or Were Actively Considering Reshoring. “In February, Boston Consulting Group surveyed 106 companies with annual sales of $1 billion or more and found that 37% planned to reshore or were ‘actively considering’ it. The MIT survey is more precise in singling out those with definite plans. When asked the broader question of whether they were considering a move to reshore, the MIT study found that 33% of those surveyed said yes.” [Wall Street Journal, 7/18/12]An MIT Study Found That 14 Percent Of U.S. Companies Surveyed “Definitely Plan To Move Some Of Their Manufacturing Back Home— The Latest Sign Of Growing Interest Among Executives In A Strategy Known As ‘Reshoring.’”? “About 14% of U.S. companies surveyed by a Massachusetts Institute of Technology professor definitely plan to move some of their manufacturing back home—the latest sign of growing interest among executives in a strategy known as ‘reshoring.’” [Wall Street Journal, 7/18/12]UNDER PRESIDENT OBAMA, CORPORATE TAXES ARE AT ALL-TIME LOWS AND CORPORATE PROFITS ARE NEAR ALL TIME HIGHSThe Washington Post’s Ezra Klein: Corporate Taxes Are At All-Time Lows And Corporate Profits Are Near All-Time Highs. “If there’s been serious distress from these policies, it’s been hard to detect in corporate bottom lines. After taxes, corporate profits amounted to 6.9 percent of GDP in 2010 — their highest level since 1966… And it speaks to the underlying reality of this recovery: Corporate taxes are near all-time lows and corporate profits are near all-time highs. That’s a mighty odd outcome for an administration that supposedly sees the existence of private businesses as an unpleasant side effect of the government’s need for tax revenues, don’t you think?” [Ezra Klein, Washington Post, 6/11/12]Washington Post’s Ezra Klein: Under President Obama, Taxes On Business Have Averaged A Lower Share Of GDP Than The Average Share Of GDP Since 1950. “Since 1950, corporate tax receipts have averaged 2.7 percent of GDP. In the Obama years, they’ve averaged 1.16 percent of GDP. Some of that, of course, is a consequence of the recession. But some of it is a consequence of policies the Obama administration has proposed and passed. The original stimulus included billions in tax cuts for businesses, including allowing businesses to write off 50 percent of the cost of any depreciable capital purchases — think tractors and wind turbines — they made in 2009. In 2010, the Obama administration upped that to 100 percent…Going forward, the Obama administration’s budget envisions corporate tax receipts rebounding to about 2.4 percent of GDP — again, beneath their historical average.” [Ezra Klein, Washington Post, 6/11/12]President Obama Believes In The Strength And Resilience Of The American People—And Knows Government Can’t Solve Every ProblemPRESIDENT OBAMA BELIEVES IN THE RESILIENCE AND STRENGTH OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AND DOES NOT BELIEVE THAT GOVERNMENT CAN OR SHOULD SOLVE EVERY PROBLEMPresident Obama Said People Underestimate The Resilience And Strength Of The American People. “But the one last thought I want to leave you with is a sense of optimism about how solvable our problems are.? It’s become fashionable to talk about how America can't recover from these kinds of challenges.? You know what, that's what they’ve said throughout our history.? They’ve always underestimated the resilience and the strength of the American people.? And we’ve been through tougher times before. And I, as you might imagine, spend a lot of time traveling all around the world -- there’s not a country that wouldn’t trade places with us.” [President Obama, 6/12/12]President Obama Said He Does Not Believe Government Can Or Should Solve Every Problem. “I have never been somebody who believes that government can or should try to solve every problem.? Some of you know my first job in Chicago was working with a group of Catholic churches that often did more good for the people in their communities than any government program could.” [President Obama, Remarks by the President at the Associated Press Luncheon, 4/3/12]President Obama:“For As Much As Government Can Do, And Must Do, It Is Ultimately The Faith And Determination Of The American People Upon Which This Nation Relies.” “And yet at this moment, a moment that will define a generation, it is precisely this spirit that must inhabit us all.? For as much as government can do, and must do, it is ultimately the faith and determination of the American people upon which this nation relies.”??[Inaugural Address, 1/20/09]President Obama: “America’s Free Market Has Not Only Been The Source Of Dazzling Ideas And Path-Breaking Products, It Has Also Been The Greatest Force For Prosperity The World Has Ever Known.” “For two centuries, America's free market has not only been the source of dazzling ideas and path-breaking products, it has also been the greatest force for prosperity the world has ever known. That vibrant entrepreneurialism is the key to our continued global leadership and the success of our people.” [WSJ Op-Ed, 1/18/11]President Obama: “The True Engine Of Job Creation In This Country Will Always Be America’s Businesses.” “Now, the true engine of job creation in this country will always be America's businesses.? (Applause.)? But government can create the conditions necessary for businesses to expand and hire more workers.”? [2010 State of the Union, 1/27/10]President Obama Believes The Country Was Built From The Bottom Up And The Middle Out Because Of “Self-Reliance And Rugged Individualism.” “This country was not built that way, from the top down.? It was built from the middle out.? It was built from the bottom up.? It was built because incredible self-reliance and rugged individualism and entrepreneurship and risk-taking was rewarded. And it was built because we invested in great schools and great universities, and we put rules of the road in place to make sure that everybody was being treated fairly. That’s how we became the most prosperous nation on Earth.? And that’s why I’m running for a second term as President of the United States? -- to go back to what works.” [President Obama, 7/24/12]President Obama Said What Makes Our Country Great Is Americans’ Willingness To Take A Risk And Start A Business. “When I think about what's made America great, it's been our rugged individualism and our willingness to take risks and people going out there and starting a small business that becomes a medium-sized business, becomes a big business, they start hiring -- all those things have contributed.” [President Obama, 7/5/12]Romney’s Redistribution Attack Takes President Obama Out Of ContextTHE ROMNEY CAMPAIGN TOOK PRESIDENT OBAMA’S REMARKS OUT OF CONTEXT Washington Post Fact Checker: “It Is Clear His Remarks Were Taken Completely Out Of Context.” ?“But now NBC News has obtained the rest of Obama’s comments, and it is clear his remarks were taken completely out of context. Obama is not talking about redistributing wealth at all — instead, he speaks about competition, the market place and innovation in an effort to improve government services in Chicago. Nevertheless, the Romney campaign had seized on the remark as evidence of Obama’s apparently socialist tendencies.” [Washington Post, Fact Checker, 9/20/12]Politico: “The Full Tape of Then-State Sen. Obama’s Remarks Left A Far Different Impression From The Clip Posted To The Drudge Report.” “The full tape of then-state Sen. Obama's remarks left a far different impression from the clip posted to Drudge Report earlier this week. Far from championing the wholesale redistribution of wealth, Obama was seen advocating a competitive, free-market system in which ‘everybody's got a shot’ -- no different from comments he made during the 2008 campaign.” [Politico, 9/20/12]INDEPENDENT FACT-CHECKERS HAVE DEBUNKED ROMNEY’S CLAIM THAT PRESIDENT OBAMA SUPPORTED REDISTRIBUTION AND NOTE THAT CLIP OMITTED PRESIDENT OBAMA PRAISING COMPETITION AND THE MARKETPLACEWashington Post Fact Checker: The Romney Campaign Should “Check The Facts Before They Rush out With Unfounded Accusations” And Gave Romney’s Claim “Four Pinocchios.” “We realize that the Romney campaign was trying to change the subject from the damaging video of Romney’s remarks in a private gathering just a few months ago. Perhaps this is a lesson that they might check the facts before they rush out with unfounded accusations — let alone ones based on remarks from the distant political past. Four Pinocchios.” [Washington Post, Fact Checker, 9/20/12]Washington Post’s Greg Sargent: “This Is Not Meaningfully Different From What Obama Has Said Thousands Of Times: He Favors Taxpayer Funded Government Spending To Create Opportunity.” “In other words, this is not meaningfully different from what Obama has said thousands of times: He favors taxpayer funded government spending to create opportunity, via investment in education and so forth. And just because he used the word ‘redistribution’ in the process, Romney and Republicans are painting it as radical and a ‘foreign concept.’” [Washington Post, Plum Line, 9/18/12]New York Magazine’s Jonathan Chait: “The Interesting Thing About It Is That It Actually Shoes Obama In 1998 As A Decidedly Moderate Figure.” [Jonathan Chait, New York Magazine, 9/18/12]NBC News: “That Omission Features Additional Words Of Praise For ‘Competition’ And The ‘Marketplace’ By The Then-State Senator.” “Mitt Romney's campaign this week has pounced on a 14-year-old clip of Obama speaking about "redistribution" in October 1998 at a conference in Chicago, in which the future president seems to extol the virtues of redistributing wealth. Yet NBC News has obtained the entirety of the relevant remarks, which includes additional comments by Obama that weren't included in the video circulated by Republicans. That omission features additional words of praise for ‘competition’ and the ‘marketplace’ by the then-state senator.” [NBC News, 9/19/12]?Bailout Mitt: Bain, Olympics, MassachusettsBLOOMBERG BUSINESSWEEK: “ROMNEY CRITICAL OF GOVERNMENT AID THAT HELPED BAIN PROFIT”Bloomberg Businessweek: Romney Accuses Government Of “Standing In The Way” Of Recovery, But Government Officials Helped Bain Owned Companies. ?“The two-time presidential candidate says his business experience qualifies him to turn around the troubled national economy. He accuses government of ‘standing in the way’ of recovery.? Yet, government officials employed a variety of techniques to help Bain-owned companies.” [Bloomberg Businessweek, 6/5/12]Bloomberg Businessweek: Under Romney, Bain Capital “Received Millions Of Dollars In Benefits From A Variety Of State And Local Government Economic Development Programs.”? “Mitt Romney likes to say that ‘government does not create prosperity.’ His record in the private equity industry shows otherwise.? During Romney’s years as chief executive of Bain Capital LLC, companies owned by the firm received millions of dollars in benefits from a variety of state and local government economic development programs.” [Bloomberg Businessweek, 6/5/12]Bloomberg Businessweek: “As A Private Equity Investor, Romney Showed No Reluctance To Accept Help From Government Coffers.” [Bloomberg Businessweek, 6/5/12]NEWLY UNCOVERED DOCUMENTS SHOW THE “LEGEND” MITT ROMNEY HAS TRIED TO CREATE ABOUT HIS “RESCUE” OF BAIN & COMPANY IS “BASICALLY A LIE,” HE RELIED ON A $10 MILLION GOVERNMENT BAILOUT TO SAVE THE COMPANYGovernment Documents Related To The Romney Engineered Bailout Of Bain & Company “Show That The Legend Crafted By Romney Is Basically A Lie.” “According to the candidate’s mythology, Romney took leave of his duties at the private equity firm Bain Capital in 1990 and rode in on a white horse to lead a swift restructuring of Bain & Company, preventing the collapse of the consulting firm where his career began. When The Boston Globe reported on the rescue at the time of his Senate run against Ted Kennedy, campaign aides spun Romney as the wizard behind a ‘long-shot miracle,’ bragging that he had ‘saved bank depositors all over the country $30 million when he saved Bain & Company.’ In fact, government documents on the bailout obtained by Rolling Stone show that the legend crafted by Romney is basically a lie.” [Rolling Stone, 8/29/12]Documents Show That Romney’s Initial Rescue Attempt At Bain & Company Was Actually A Disaster, And He “Rewarded Top Executives At Bain With Hefty Bonuses” While Demanding A Federal Bailout. “The federal records, obtained under the Freedom of Information Act, reveal that Romney’s initial rescue attempt at Bain & Company was actually a disaster – leaving the firm so financially strapped that it had ‘no value as a going concern.’ … And in an added insult, Romney rewarded top executives at Bain with hefty bonuses at the very moment that he was demanding his handout from the feds.” [Rolling Stone, 8/29/12]Romney And His Partners At Bain Capital Ultimately Received $4 Million For Romney’s Services At Bain & Company, While The FDIC Provided A “Government Bailout Of $10 Million.” “The FDIC agreed to accept nearly $5 million in cash to retire $15 million in Bain’s debt – an immediate government bailout of $10 million. All told, the FDIC estimated it would recoup just $14 million of the $30 million that Romney’s firm owed the government. … Bain Capital – the very firm that had triggered the crisis in the first place – walked away with $4 million. That was the fee it charged Bain & Company for loaning the consulting firm the services of its chief executive – one Willard Mitt Romney.” [Rolling Stone, 8/29/12]Romney: “It Doesn’t Make Sense To Bail Out Individual Companies Or Banks Or Financial Institutions That Get In Trouble.” [Romney, No Apology, 127-28]ROMNEY ADMINISTRATION CREATED OFFICE DEDICATED TOWARDS OBTAINING FEDERAL GRANTS and successfully increased their porker rankingRomney Established A Federal Grants Office To Scour For Opportunities For Federal Funding And Bolster The State’s Presence In DC.? “Not long ago, however, he took a much different view of federal spending. Far from decrying Washington's spendthrift ways, Romney, as governor of Massachusetts, sought to position his state to hoover up every federal dollar it could—and to use that money to help solve a state budget crisis. According to memos, emails, and other records now housed in the state archives, the Romney administration made the pursuit of federal funding a top priority, establishing a federal grants office to scour for opportunities and bolstering its presence in DC by retaining a powerful lobbying shop for help.” [Kroll, Mother Jones, 11/30/11]Between 2003, When Romney Took Office, And 2006, Massachusetts Climbed As High As Nine Spots In The Pork Rankings. “Internal documents show the administration bemoaning its low ranking in an annual ‘pork list; detailing which states brought home the most federal bacon, and aggressively planning to boost that ranking. Which they did: Between 2003, when Romney took office, and 2006, Massachusetts climbed as high as nine spots in the pork rankings.” [Kroll, Mother Jones, 11/30/11]Romney Hired Washington DC Lobbyist To Increase Federal Funding To Massachusetts. “Among [Romney’] first hires was Cindy Gillespie, a former congressional staffer and Washington attorney, to be his chief of legislative and intergovernmental affairs. Romney met Gillespie in Salt Lake City when he was running the 2002 Winter Olympics--and she was winning copious federal dollars to support the games. She knows that she's got a tough job on her hands. ‘The Washington office exists for one reason: to increase the amount of federal funding coming back to the state,’ says Gillespie, who oversees federal-state relations from Boston and is considered one of Romney's closest aides. Unfortunately, she admits, ‘It's a very difficult environment because no one has any money, including the federal government.’” [Commonwealth Magazine, Spring 2003]Romney Aide Cindy Gillespie: “The Washington Office Exists For One Reason: To Increase The Amount Of Federal Funding Coming Back To The State.” [Commonwealth Magazine, Spring 2003]ROMNEY relied on the federal government TO PAY FOR ROMNEYCARERomney Admitted That Half His Massachusetts Plan Was Funded By The Federal Government To Provide Subsidies To Help People Buy Insurance. “O’REILLY: You know me. I’m a simple man. Okay? You say you solved the problem in the state, but depending on 50 percent of your funding from the Feds. ROMNEY: As we did from the beginning. O’REILLY: Okay, but I’m just telling you, I don’t know if you solved the problem or the people in Idaho solved it. ROMNEY: No, but what we did is we took the money the Feds used to send us-- O’REILLY: Yes. ROMNEY: --to give to the hospitals that were giving out free care. The hospitals were doing that before. And we said, look, can we take that money that you give to us that we give to the hospitals and instead of giving it to hospitals-- O’REILLY: You’ve spread it around. ROMNEY: We’re going to use it to help people buy insurance. O’REILLY: Okay. One more and-- ROMNEY: It was not a new burden on the federal government. It was a redirection of what they’ve been doing before.” [O’Reilly, Fox News, 4/12/10]Federal Funds Make Up Half Of Amount In Massachusetts Subsidized Health Insurance Plans.? “Massachusetts uses a ‘coordinated payment model’ to administer Commonwealth Care subsidies. Enrollees pay their portion of the premium to the state, which then takes subsidy dollars from the Commonwealth Care Trust Fund and makes payments to the participating health plans. This method simplifies administration of subsidies and allows the Connector to verify in real time that members are paying their share of premiums.15 Federal matching dollars account for approximately half of the amount allocated for Commonwealth Care subsidies.” [BlueCross Foundation, Massachusetts Health Reform A Five Year Progress Report, p 9, November 2011]John McDonough, A “Major Architect” Of Romneycare: “It Would Have Been Impossible For Massachusetts To Do What It Did Without Increased Federal Medicaid Support.” [Boston Globe, 5/4/12]Kaiser Family Foundation: Approximately 56% Of The Gain In Coverage In The First Three Years Following Romneycare Was Related To Increased Federal Medicaid Support. “In the first three years following the health care overhaul [in Massachusetts], about 430,000 Massachusetts residents gained insurance. Approximately 56 percent of the gain in coverage was related to increased federal Medicaid support, according to a 2009 report by the Kaiser Family Foundation. Of the newly insured, 18 percent gained coverage through Medicaid, and another 38 percent gained coverage through Commonwealth Care, a program that federal Medicaid dollars pay half of, due to waiver negotiations that Romney and Kennedy had achieved.” [Boston Globe, 5/4/12]Romney Used Federal STimulus Dollars To Boost To State’s Stabilization FundMassachusetts Received $550 Million From Federal Stimulus Funds.? “Massachusetts is due to collect a one-time infusion of $550 million in federal funds as a result of the economic-stimulus package passed yesterday by Congress, money that will help relieve a state budget deficit projected to reach $3 billion next fiscal year. Most of the funds will be paid to the state in fiscal 2004, which begins on July 1, Gov. Mitt Romney announced yesterday.” [Lowell Sun, 5/24/03]Headline: Stimulus Package, Big Boost To State [Lowell Sun, 5/24/03]Romney Transferred $99.1 Million From Federal Stimulus Funds Into The Massachusetts Stabilization Fund.?[Massachusetts Office Of The Treasurer, Statement Of Information, P. A-21,?3/17/05]Romney Signed Legislation To Send Federal Stimulus Money Into State Stabilization Fund.?? On November 21, 2003, which included language saying “Notwithstanding any general or special law to the contrary, the comptroller shall deposit fiscal relief funds and increased federal Medicaid assistance percentage funds received from the federal government during fiscal years 2004…to the Federal Medicaid Assistance Percentage Escrow Fund, which shall be established and set up on the books of the commonwealth. This fund shall be subject to appropriation, shall contribute to the calculation of the consolidated net surplus pursuant to section 5C of chapter 29 of the General Laws, and shall expire June 30, 2005 at which time the comptroller shall transfer any remaining fund balance to the Stabilization Fund.” [Chapter 118 Of The Acts Of 2003, Section 1, Signed 11/21/03, emphasis added]ROMNEY OVERSAW A WIDE-RANGING LOBBYING CAMPAIGN TO BAILOUT THE SALT LAKE OLYMPICS WITH TAXPAYER DOLLARS – ROMNEY’S GAMES WERE “THE MOST EXPENSIVE WINTER GAMES EVER”NBC News: “Mitt Romney Oversaw A Wide-Ranging Lobbying Campaign To Snare Tens Of Millions Of Dollars In Federal Earmarks For The Salt Lake City Olympic Games At A Time Critics Were Charging The Games Had Become A Prime Example Of Out-Of-Control ‘Pork Barrel’ Spending.” [NBC News, 2/18/12]The Salt Lake Olympic Games “Got More Federal Cash Than Any Previous U.S. Olympics.” [Wall Street Journal, 6/13/11]The Salt Lake Olympics Were The Most Expensive Winter Games Ever Costing $2 Billion With $1 Out Of Every $5 Funded By Taxpayers. “The Salt Lake City Olympics will be the most expensive Winter Games ever, costing nearly $2 billion -- or $791,667 per athlete -- to stage 17 days of skiing and skating. Nearly $1 of every $5 will be picked up by U.S. taxpayers.” [AP, 12/11/01]The Federal Contribution To The Salt Lake Olympics Was Five Times As Much As The 1984 Games And Twice As Much As The 1996 Games. “Just as important is the federal contribution of about $380 million, five times what taxpayers had to pay for the 1984 Games in Los Angeles and twice as much as what the federal government spent on the 1996 Games in Atlanta.” [AP, 12/11/01]McCain Called The Amount Of Federal Money Going To The Olympics “A National Disgrace” And Said There Should Be “A Federal Investigation” While Romney Defended The Federal Funds.? McCain: “But you’ve got well over $1 billion that’s just a rip-off of the taxpayers, and, you know, is really a national disgrace…Actually, there should be a federal investigation.” ROMNEY: But Senator McCain, I believe, raises a very good question.? What should the role of the federal government be with regards to the Olympics?? Should it provide the security? Should it provide the highways and bridges necessary to get people to venues? In my view, the answer is, unequivocally, yes.” [CBS Evening News (6:30 PM ET) – CBS, February 9, 2002]TONE OF THE CAMPAIGNPRO-POTUSCrocodile Tears: The Romney Campaign Has Kept “Little Off Limits,” Attacking President Obama’s Patriotism And Pandering To BirthersHeadline: “Little Off-Limits As Romney Preps Counterattack.” [MSNBC, 07/18/12] Headline: “Romney Campaign's Attacks On Obama Play On 'Birther' Fears.” [Los Angeles Times, 07/18/12] Headline: “Romney Camp Toying With Symbolic Birtherism.” [Jay Bookman, Atlanta Journal-Constitution, 07/18/12] Headline: “How Romney Spent All Day Calling Obama A Foreigner.” [Think Progess, 07/17/12] Headline: “Romney Surrogate Sununu: 'I Wish This President Would Learn How To Be An American'” [MSNBC, 07/18/12]Headline: “Romney Campaign Attacks Obama's Patriotism” [MSNBC, 07/17/12]Headline: “Romney Announces Fourth Attack Ad In A Week.” [ABC, 07/18/12] Personal AttacksROMNEY ACCUSED PRESIDENT OBAMA OF BEING UN-AMERICAN AND DID NOT CRITICIZE SURROGATES MAKING ACCUSATIONS OF TREASON AND BIRTHER CLAIMS Mitt Romney: “The Course We're On Right Now Is Foreign To Us. It Changes America.” [Los Angeles Times, 07/18/12]Mitt Romney: President Obama’s Course For This Country Is “Extraordinarily Foreign.” “Celebrating success instead of attacking it and denigrating making America strong. That’s the right course for the country. [Obama’s] course is extraordinarily foreign.” [Mitt Romney, Irwin, Pennsylvania 07/18/12]Romney Said President Obama Had Led An “Assault On American Values.” “I think he is detached from reality when he says that he wants to ‘reclaim American values.’ There has been in my view an assault on American values since the beginning of his administration. [Faith and Freedom Coalition Conference Call, 1/25/12]Romney: President Obama “Doesn’t Have The Same Feelings About American Exceptionalism That We Do.” “‘Our president doesn’t have the same feelings about American exceptionalism that we do,’ Romney said. ‘And I think over the last three or four years, some people around the world have begun to question that. On this Tuesday, we have an opportunity — you have an opportunity — to vote, and take the next step in bringing back that special nature of being American.’” [Washington Post, 3/31/12; Romney, Faith & Freedom Coalition, 3/31/12]Romney Claimed President Obama Saw “Nothing Unique About The United States.” Romney: “I believe we are an exceptional country with a unique destiny and role in the world. Not exceptional, as the President has derisively said, in the way that the British think Great Britain is exceptional or the Greeks think Greece is exceptional. In Barack Obama's profoundly mistaken view, there is nothing unique about the United States.” [Romney Remarks on Foreign Policy, 10/7/11]Romney Said He Believed America Was An “Exceptional And Unique Nation,” While President Obama Though It Was “Just Another Nation With A Flag.” ROMNEY: President Obama's foreign policy is one of saying, first of all, America's just another nation with a flag.?I believe America is an exceptional and unique nation. [Republican National Security Debate, 11/22/11]After A Woman Said President Obama “Should Be Tried For Treason,” Romney Side-Stepped The Comment And “Allowed The Woman A Follow-Up Question.” “‘We have a president right now who is operating outside the construction of our Constitution,’ said Mr. Romney’s supporter, standing in the middle of an Ohio town hall. ‘And I do agree he should be tried for treason. But I want to know what you are going to be able to do to help restore balance between the three branches of government and what you’re going to be able to do to restore our Constitution in this country?’ ‘As I’m sure you do, I happen to believe that the Constitution was not just brilliant, but probably inspired,’ Mr. Romney said, side-stepping the woman’s comments about treason, a crime still punishable by death in the United States. Mr. Romney also allowed the woman a follow-up question.” [New York Times, 5/7/12; Romney Town Hall, Euclid, OH, 5/7/12]Romney Refused To Tell Trump To Stop The Birther Arguments, And Said “I Don’t Go Around Telling My Supporters What They Should Think Or What They Should Say.” HOST: “You have the support of Donald Trump. He’s on our air every Tuesday on the morning show ‘Squawk Box,’ uh, always entertaining, always provocative, His resumption, though, of the birther argument has made some uncomfortable, and I'm wondering if you disagree with that, why not just tell him to knock it off? Why would that be so difficult?” ROMNEY: “Well I disagree there's no question that the president was born in the united states of America. I don't go around telling all my supporters what they should think or what they should say. But he knows what I believe about this. I believe the real issues in this campaign and the issues that America cares about are not issues of the president's personality or – or matters of that nature, but instead the issue is the president in a position to lead America and to get us out of these economic doldrums and put families back to work? I don't think he is. I think he's proven over the last three and a half years he's not up to the task. He's over his head.” [Romney Interview, CNBC, 6/1/12]ROMNEY ACCUSED PRESIDENT OBAMA OF TRYING TO MAKE AMERICA A LESS CHRISTIAN NATIONWhen Asked Whether He Stood By A Previous Comment Criticizing President Obama For Listening To Reverend Wright And Allegedly Trying To Make America A Less Christian Nation, Romney Said “I Stand By What I Said, Whatever It Was.” At a press avail, Romney was asked “You did an interview with Sean Hannity in February, you said that you think Obama was trying to make America a less Christian nation, and it was responding to a quote that he had just played for you on the raid. Do you stand by that and do you believe that President Obama’s world view was shaped by Reverend Wright and do you see evidence of that in his policies?” Romney responded, “I’m actually gonna -- I'm not familiar precisely with exactly what I said, but I stand by what I said, whatever it was. And, uh, with regards to, I'll go back and take a look at what was said there. The focus of my campaign is going to be, as I've just suggested, on the future and on who can do best to build an America that has great promise and great opportunity for fulfillment of dreams.” [Romney Press Avail, Jacksonville, FL, 5/17/12]ROMNEY ACCUSED PRESIDENT OBAMA OF UNDERMINING THE FOUNDING PRINCIPLES OF AMERICARomney: “We Are One Nation Under God. I Think The President Is Very Much Moving To Erase That Elemental Part Of Our Founding And Of Our Principle Understanding Of America.” Romney: “I think the president is making it abundantly clear that he is more interested in the plaudits of the people he meets at his fundraising cocktail parties than he is in the interest of the American people who he claims cling to God, guns and religion. And I believe that we are a God-fearing people. We are one nation under God. I think the president is very much moving to erase that elemental part of our founding and of our principle understanding of America and I think the American people are going to recognize this for what it is.” [Hannity Radio, 2/7/12]Romney: Obama Administration Was Attacking Principles Of The Signers Of The Declaration Of Independence. “Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich described the 2012 contest as pivotal, and the Obama administration as antithetical to religious freedom at an event held by the Wisconsin Faith & Freedom Coalition. They criticized the health care reform law proposed by President Obama as an assault on religious liberty, and invoked the Declaration of Independence’s affirmation of ‘self-evident’ truths and that ‘all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights.’ ‘I believe they chose in those few words and in those principles a vision for America that would make us unique and exceptional in the world,’ Romney said of the Declaration signers. ‘Those rights and what's associated with them, I believe, are what made America what we are. And today those rights are under attack by this administration which is one more reason we have tot to replace this administration.’” [CNN, 3/31/12; Romney, Faith & Freedom Coalition, 3/31/12]Surrogates AttackROMNEY CAMPAIGN: “VERY LITTLE WILL BE OFF-LIMITS” ON PRESIDENT OBAMARomney’s Campaign Advisers Said “Very Little Will Be Off-Limits, From The President's Youthful Drug Habit, To His Ties To Disgraced Chicago Politicians.” “In the next chapter of Boston's pushback — which began last week when they began labeling Obama a "liar" — very little will be off-limits, from the president's youthful drug habit, to his ties to disgraced Chicago politicians.” [Buzzfeed, 07/18/12] Romney Adviser: “‘I Mean, This Is A Guy Who Admitted To Cocaine Use, Had A Sweetheart Deal With His House In Chicago, And Was Associated And Worked With Rod Blagojevich To Get Valerie Jarrett Appointed To The Senate. … The Bottom Line Is There'll Be Counterattacks.’” [Buzzfeed, 07/18/12]JOHN SUNUNU ACCUSED PRESIDENT OBAMA OF NOT BEING AN AMERICAN John Sununu: “I Wish This President Would Learn How To Be American.”? [Romney Conference Call, 7/17/12]John Sununu: Obama Doesn’t Understand How The American System Works “Because He Spent His Early Years In Hawaii Smoking Something [And] Spent The Next Set Of Years In Indonesia.” SUNUNU: “This guy doesn’t understand how to create jobs. So there is no surprise — there should be because of that statement no surprise on why he failed so miserably over the last four years, in terms of job creation. He has no idea how the American system functions, and we shouldn’t be surprised about that, because he spent his early years in Hawaii smoking something, spent the next set of years in Indonesia, another set of years in Indonesia, and, frankly, when he came to the U.S. he worked as a community organizer, which is a socialized structure, and then got into politics in Chicago.”? [America’s Newsroom, Fox News, 7/17/12]JOHN SUNUNU CRITICIZED PRESIDENT OBAMA’S TIES TO CHICAGO AS “SMARMY,” “MURKY,” AND “DISGRACED John Sununu: “This President Runs His White House With The Same Kind Of Smarmy Philosophy That People Run Things In Chicago.”? [America’s Newsroom, Fox News, 7/17/12]John Sununu: President Obama Comes From “That Murky Political World In Chicago Where Politician And Felon Has Become Synonymous.”? SUNUNU: “He comes out of that murky political world in Chicago where politician and felon has become synonymous.? It is an area where two of their governors are in prison.? It is an area where Tony Rezko is a convicted felon and in prison and just so happened to be the guy that did a smarmy real estate deal with the President in which Rezko pays top dollar and the President pays a discount and the deal is able to be done.? It comes out of his political genes if you will that this is the right way to do business.”? [Romney Conference Call, 7/17/12]Romney’s Campaign Advisers Said “Very Little Will Be Off-Limits, From The President's Youthful Drug Habit, To His Ties To Disgraced Chicago Politicians.” “In the next chapter of Boston's pushback — which began last week when they began labeling Obama a "liar" — very little will be off-limits, from the president's youthful drug habit, to his ties to disgraced Chicago politicians.” [Buzzfeed, 07/18/12] A ROMNEY ADVISER CHARACTERIZED THE “OBAMA AMERICA” AS SOCIALISTOn A Romney Campaign Conference Call Kyle Koehler Said “It Seems To Me That The Obama America, There’s No Risk But There’s Plenty Of Reward. That’s Called Socialism To Me.” “It seems to me that the Obama America, there’s no risk but there’s plenty of reward. That’s called socialism to me. In the small business America, there’s a lot of risk, and a chance of reward, and that’s called capitalism, and that’s what made the United States the greatest nation on the face of the earth.” [Think Progess, 07/17/12]JOHN SUNUNU CALLED THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION AND CAMPAIGN “STUPID” AND “LIARS”John Sununu Said The Obama Campaign Was “Stupid” Because An Ad Questioned Whether Mitt Romney Had Paid All His Taxes In Years That He Didn’t Provide Tax Returns.? BOXER: “What do you think of the new Obama ad in Pennsylvania today that indicates that possibly not releasing tax returns might show that Governor Romney didn’t pay taxes at all, potentially, for any of the years that he’s not releasing the record?”? SUNUNU: “It just shows how stupid the Obama campaign is to think that somebody who has been a public businessman all his life and Governor of Massachusetts, if he didn’t pay his returns, you don’t think that the IRS would be knocking at his door? … The Obama campaign has once again demonstrated that they are clearly and unequivocally a bunch of liars.”? [Romney Conference Call, 7/17/12]John Sununu: “This Is A Really Dumb White House, And A Dumb Campaign.”? SUNUNU: “Actually the point I'm really trying to make is that this is a really dumb White House, and a dumb campaign, that for them to introduce the word felon into the discourse reminds people that the President came out of that murky soup of politics in Illinois where, as I've said before, politician and felon are almost synonymous. If he wants to run the campaign that way and say it's legitimate to discuss those issues I don't think it's very smart. Look, the Chicago formula is the formula this white house uses.”? [America’s Newsroom, Fox News, 7/17/12]John Sununu: The Obama Campaign Is “Clearly And Unequivocally A Bunch Of Liars.”? [Romney Conference Call, 7/17/12]ROMNEY REFUSED TO CONDEMN COMMENTS BY TED NUGENT CALLING THE OBAMA CAMPAIGN AND ADMINISTRATION “CRIMINALS” AND MAKING VEILED THREATSHeadline: “Ted Nugent Calls Obama Team 'Criminals,' Romney Ignores It” [The Ballot, US News & World Report, 4/17/12]Romney Campaign On Ted Nugent Made An Apparent Threat Against President Obama: “Divisive Language Is Offensive No Matter What Side Of The Political Aisle It Comes From. Mitt Romney Believes Everyone Needs To Be Civil.” “Republican candidate Mitt Romney's campaign called for civility on Tuesday after aging rock star Ted Nugent made an apparent threat against President Barack Obama before an audience of U.S. gun lobbyists. … Andrea Saul, Romney's spokeswoman, did not condemn Nugent in an email on Tuesday but said Romney wants to promote civility. ‘Divisive language is offensive no matter what side of the political aisle it comes from. Mitt Romney believes everyone needs to be civil,’ she said.” [Reuters, 4/17/12]ATTACKRomney Is Running A Negative CampaignTHE ROMNEY CAMPAIGN HAS “DEPLOYED EVERY TACTIC IN THE NEGATIVE CAMPAIGN PLAYBOOK”?Headline: “Romney Reopens Whatever-It-Takes Playbook” [New York Times, 3/1/12]?Romney Campaign “Has Deployed Every Tactic In The Negative-Campaign Playbook” Against His GOP Rivals. “But even his battered rivals acknowledge that Mr. Romney is proving unusually adept at defining, diminishing and disqualifying a serial cast of challengers through relentless attacks. His campaign has deployed every tactic in the negative-campaign playbook. It has issued Twitter messages poking fun at Mr. Gingrich’s penchant for rhetorical excess (with the hashtag #grandiosenewt). It created digital slogans and a letterhead disparaging Mr. Santorum’s long career in government (‘Rick Went to Washington,’ they read, ‘and he never came back’). It created dozens of Web videos denigrating President Obama’s economic leadership (‘Obama isn’t working’). And it benefited from the advertising onslaught unleashed against Mr. Romney’s rivals by a ‘super PAC’ backing him.” [New York Times, 3/1/12]?2012: Romney Won Primaries “After Vastly Outspending His Rival, With The Help Of Deep-Pocketed Allies, Strafing Santorum With A Ceaseless Barrage Of Negative Advertisements.” “Romney's performance Tuesday in Wisconsin was instructive, as his 7-percentage-point victory over Rick Santorum followed a now-familiar pattern. He started out trailing the former Pennsylvania senator, according to Wisconsin polls. But Romney pulled ahead after vastly outspending his rival, with the help of deep-pocketed allies, strafing Santorum with a ceaseless barrage of negative advertisements — the same thing Romney did to opponents in Iowa, Florida, Michigan, Ohio and Illinois.” [Los Angeles Times, 4/4/12]?By “Burying Rivals In An Avalanche Of Attack Ads” Romney “Has Sullied His Own Image.” “Moreover, because of the way Romney has won — by burying rivals in an avalanche of attack ads — he has sullied his own image; anyone who has ever heaved a mud pie at close range knows that some dirt splatters back.” [Los Angeles Times, 4/4/12]ROMNEY’S OPPONENTS COMPLAINED OF THE NEGATIVE AND MISLEADING TACTICS OF THE ROMNEY CAMPAIGN…Santorum Said He Was Fighting In Ohio Despite “The Barrage Of Negativity” From Romney’s Super PAC, Restore Our Future. “In the conference call with reporters, Mr. Santorum couched the race in biblical terms, saying that after being outspent 12-to-1 in the race that it is ‘probably a little bit of an understatement’ to see the political battle as ‘David versus Goliath.’ ‘We’re out here fighting for principles and the people of Ohio, in spite of the barrage of negativity from the [Romney] super PAC,’ Mr. Santorum said.” [Washington Times, 3/5/12]Santorum: Romney’s Negative Ads Took Things I Said “Completely Out Of The Context.” Santorum: “Governor Romney has spent tens of millions of dollars running negative ads about specious issues, taking things I said completely out of the context, try to convince the voters of Wisconsin -- believe this one, Chris -- that I'm not pro life? I mean, these are kinds of ridiculous campaign tactics that Romney campaign is taking on.” [Fox News Sunday, Fox News, 4/1/12]Santorum: Romney Has Run A “Negative, Negative, Negative” Campaign. Santorum: “You know, we run a very substantive campaign because we believe that that's what's going to win in the general election. Governor Romney has run negative, negative, negative. He hasn't painted a positive vision for this country. He hasn't been able to close the deal with the conservatives, much less anybody else in this party. And that's not going to be an effective tool for us to win this general election.” [Fox News Sunday, Fox News, 4/1/12]Gingrich Criticized Romney’s Plan To “Destroy” Him Adding “What A Pathetic Situation To Be Running For The President Of The United States With Nothing Positive To Say For Yourself.” ‘In the meeting, Gingrich said, referring the Times piece, Romney and his aides settled on a plan to ‘destroy’ the former House Speaker in Florida. ‘And I thought to myself, what a pathetic situation to be running for the President of the United States with nothing positive to say for yourself,’ Gingrich said. ‘And nothing available, a big idea, big vision, a big future, and all you got to do is try to tear your opponent down to where they get smaller than you are. That's the Romney model. Now that's not my model. My model is to talk about big solutions.’’ [CNN, 1/30/12]Gingrich Said Romney Was Running A “Negative Smear Campaign” Against Him Through Restore Our Future And Was Lying About Him. “Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich lashed out at Mitt Romney on Tuesday, accusing his chief rival of a ‘negative smear campaign’ fueled by a political action committee [Restore Our Future] with close ties to the former Massachusetts governor. ‘Understand, these are his people running his ads, doing his dirty work while he pretends to be above it,’ Gingrich told reporters after a campaign appearance at a heavy machinery plant in Ottumwa, Iowa. ‘I don’t object to being outspent. I object to lies. I object to negative smear campaigns.’” [Associated Press, 12/20/11]…AND REPUBLICANS HAVE DEEMED ROMNEY’S CAMPAIGN “SLASH AND BURN” AND TOO NEGATIVEGOP Strategist David Johnson: Restore Our Future Needs To “Slash And Burn Their Opponents” Because “That’s The Only Way Romney Can Win.” “The firepower, to which Santorum has yet to respond, fits a pattern that has become a defining feature of the 2012 Republican presidential primary race. Since the contests began, Restore Our Future has spent $35 million on commercials attacking Santorum, a former Pennsylvania U.S. senator, and Newt Gingrich, the former U.S. House speaker, the two candidates who have come closest to knocking Romney out of front-runner status, according to the Washington-based Center for Responsive Politics, which tracks political money. The super-PAC has spent just $1.1 million promoting Romney, the data shows. ‘They need to demonize and destroy, they need to slash and burn their opponents,’ said David Johnson, a Republican strategist from Atlanta who worked on former Senator Bob Dole’s Republican presidential bid in 1988 and is unaffiliated with any candidate this cycle. ‘That’s the only way Romney can win’ because he has ‘no base of support,’ he said.” [Bloomberg, 3/27/12]?GOP Strategist Nelson Warfield: “It’s Clear The Negative Ads Are What’s Keeping [Romney] Alive.” “As successful as the strategy has been, though, it has raised questions about Mr. Romney’s role in turning the primary process into something akin to a civil war, even as it has demonstrated a ferocious, whatever-it-takes style that could hearten Republicans if Mr. Romney ends up in a general election matchup against Mr. Obama. ‘It’s clear the negative ads are what’s keeping this guy alive,’ said Nelson Warfield, a Republican strategist who worked for Mr. Perry. ‘It seems like Republican primary voters will not vote for Mitt Romney unless they are forced into it. And the way they’re forced into it is when he beats the other guy senseless.’” [New York Times, 3/1/12]Jon Huntsman: Romney Will Have To “Work Hard” To Campaign On More Than Fear. “Though he categorically ruled out being Romney's running mate, Huntsman stood by his tepid endorsement of Romney, saying he would manage legislation through Congress more effectively. But Huntsman said Romney has to campaign on more than fear, and provide a positive alternative to Obama. ‘He’ll have to work hard on making sure that happens,’ he said.” [BuzzFeed, 4/22/12]Gov. Daniels Said Romney Was Too Negative. “With that in mind it's worth remembering that whether you like him or not, Daniels ran two successful campaigns for governor that were heavy on positive messages and policy ideas. He said political victories that follow ‘slash-and-burn’ campaigns seldom lead to great accomplishments. ‘You have to campaign to govern, not just to?win,’ he said. ‘. . . Spend the precious time and dollars explaining what's at stake and a constructive program to make life better. And as I say, look at everything through the lens of folks who have yet to achieve.’ After a pause, Daniels added with disappointment: ‘Romney doesn't talk that way.’” [Matthew Tully, Indianapolis Star, 4/19/12]When Discussing Romney, Sen. John McCain Said, “I Think People Are A Little Turned Off Because Of The Negativity Of This Campaign.” [Barry Young Radio Show, KFYI, Phoenix, 4/2/12]ROMNEY’S CAMPAIGN COMPARED OPPONENTS TO VAMPIRES AND ZOMBIES – TRYING TO KILL THEM WITH OPPO UNTIL THEY WERE REALLY DEADThe Romney Campaign Relished Going Negative And Compared Their Opponents To Vampires And Zombies Where They May Look Dead “But Wait A Minute, Let’s Dig Up The Casket, Open It Up. We Got More Bullets In Our Gun. Let’s Keep Shooting. You Never Know.”“The Romney campaign relished going negative. The Romney adviser recalled how one of the senior strategists told the group ‘that his wife had him read about vampire and how the only way they could die was to burn them and scatter their ashes,’ Perry, in the Romneyite view, was a kind of zombie who could rise up from the dead. The answer was more oppo – opposition research to make negative ads. ‘Matt [Rhoades, the campaign manager] and Gail Gitcho [the communications director] and that crowd, they’re all oppo,’ said the adviser. ‘So their view is ‘He’s dead, but wait a minute, let’s dig up the casket, open it up. We got more bullets in our gun. Let’s keep shooting. You never know.’” [Inside The Circus, Politico Book, Evan Thomas & Mike Allen, 2012]Senior Romney Advisor Said Of The Reaction To Gingrich’s Surge: “Who Can We Kill?” … “We Have To Kill Somebody, And We Didn’t Kill Them Dead Enough, Or He [Gingrich] Didn’t Stay Dead, Or Whatever.” “At Romney headquarters, many staffers were incredulous. ‘They were saying, ‘We’re losing to Newt-frigging-Gingrich? How embarrassing is that?’’ recalled a senior Romney adviser. Some in Romney’s family questioned whether the professional staff should have better understood the threat posed by Gingrich. But aside from some grumbling, the general feeling at Romney headquarters was: don’t get mad, get even. ‘Romneyworld is a place where there’s not a lot of screaming and emotion,’ said another adviser. ‘There’s no wailing at failure, nobody tearing their clothes. It’s not an Arab funeral or a Jewish funeral; it’s a WASP funeral. I mean, very stiff-upper-lip and very matter-of-fact. ‘Okay, we made some mistakes, we understand Gingrich. Now we know what we need to do.’’ The first instinct of the staff, with its faith in oppo, is ‘Who can we kill?’ said the adviser. ‘We have to kill somebody, and we didn’t kill them dead enough, or he [Gingrich] didn’t stay dead, or whatever.’” [Inside The Circus, Politico Book, Evan Thomas & Mike Allen, 2012]ROMNEY’S CAMPAIGN SAID THEY WOULD NOT “LET OUR BOOT OFF GINGRICH’S NECK” AND “SLAY” HIMRomney Adviser On Romney’s Aggressive Campaign Against Gingrich: “We Are Not Going To Let Our Boot Off Gingrich's Neck.” “Painful to Newt Gingrich. Romney spoke, his hands in his lap, in the practiced more-in-sorrow-than-in-anger tone of a principal speaking about a student he gladly expelled. An adviser explained what was really going on: ‘We are not going to let our boot off Gingrich's neck.’” [Slate, 1/30/12]Romney Staffer: “It’s Not About Winning Here Anymore” … “It’s About Destroying Gingrich – And It’s Working.” “Mitt Romney's goal in Florida is no longer just winning. After Gingrich scored a surprise blow-out victory in South Carolina last week, the former Massachusetts governor not only unleashed a political broadside of epic proportions. ‘It's not about winning here anymore,’ one Romney staffer told BuzzFeed. ‘It's about destroying Gingrich — and it's working.’” [Buzzfeed, 1/29/12]Romney Campaign Aims To “Slay A Dragon” Called Newt Gingrich.?“The Gingrich rise gives Mr. Romney the chance to beat back a rival in a one-to-one fight, some party operatives say, and show the resilience his backers are looking for. ‘To be a strong candidate going forward, Mitt has to slay a dragon. And Newt has now become that dragon,’ one Romney adviser said.” [Wall Street Journal,?12/5/11]ROMNEY AND HIS SUPER PAC SPENT TENS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS DURING THE PRIMARY, MOSTLY ON NEGATIVE ADSPhiladelphia Inquirer:?“Restore Our Future Has Spent More Than $39 Million On Blackballing Mr. Romney's Rivals On Air, Plus $1.1 Million Promoting Their Candidate With Positive Spots.”?[Philadelphia Inquirer,?4/7/12]Romney “Made Sporadic Efforts To Appeal To The Grassroots Right Wing Of His Party” But His Success Depended On Establishment Support, More Money, And “Wave After Wave Of Negative Ads That Ground Down His More Conservative Opponents.” “Romney has made sporadic efforts to appeal to the grassroots right wing of his party. Ultimately, his success depended on establishment GOP and business community support, superior organization, a vastly larger war chest, and wave after wave of negative ads that ground down his more conservative opponents.” [Boston Globe, 4/12/12]Romney And Restore Our Future’s Ad Strategy In The Primary Included “A Torrent Of Attacks On Romney's Opponents.” “Voters in early primary states have seen plenty of this ad strategy already: a torrent of attacks on Romney's opponents along with a few positive spots about the GOP front-runner's biography and business experience. The strategy, devised by Romney's campaign and an allied independent group [Restore Our Future], has been focused and unforgiving, all but eviscerating the former Massachusetts governor's rivals while portraying the candidate as an effective manager and devoted family man.” [Associated Press, 3/29/12]Restore Our Future Approach Has Been To Air Negative Attacks Against Romney’s Opponents. “Restore Our Future, which is run by several former Romney advisers, has spent more than $35 million on TV ads alone, almost of which have been negative attacks against Santorum and Gingrich. ROF's approach has been clear and unadorned: Cut straight to the heart of Romney's rivals' vulnerabilities, often using their own words against them. Make accusations about their records, citing news sources as support.” [Associated Press, 3/29/12]Ryan’s Convention Speech Was Full Of Lies And Negative RhetoricRYAN’S CONVENTION SPEECH WAS WIDELY VIEWED AS MISLEADINGWashington Post Editorial HEADLINE: “Mr. Ryan’s Misleading Speech” [Washington Post, Editorial, 8/29/12]The New Republic HEADLINE: “The Most Dishonest Convention Speech ... Ever?” [Jonathan Cohn, The New Republic, 8/29/12]Washington Post Ezra Klein Column Headline: “A Not-Very-Truthful Speech In A Not-Very-Truthful Campaign.” [Ezra Klein, Washington Post, 8/30/12]: Ryan’s Speech “Contained Several False Claims And Misleading Statements” Involving Medicare Savings, The Bipartisan Deficit Commission, Stimulus Funding, The Janesville GM Plant Closure, And The Credit Downgrade. “Paul Ryan’s acceptance speech at the Republican convention contained several false claims and misleading statements. Delegates cheered as the vice presidential nominee: Accused President Obama’s health care law of funneling money away from Medicare ‘at the expense of the elderly.’ In fact, Medicare’s chief actuary says the law ‘substantially improves’ the system’s finances, and Ryan himself has embraced the same savings. Accused Obama of doing ‘exactly nothing’ about recommendations of a bipartisan deficit commission — which Ryan himself helped scuttle. Claimed the American people were ‘cut out’ of stimulus spending. Actually, more than a quarter of all stimulus dollars went for tax relief for workers. Faulted Obama for failing to deliver a 2008 campaign promise to keep a Wisconsin plant open. It closed less than a month before Obama took office. Blamed Obama for the loss of a AAA credit rating for the U.S. Actually, Standard & Poor’s blamed the downgrade on the uncompromising stands of both Republicans and Democrats.” [, 8/30/12]Fox News’Sally Kohn: Ryan “Set The World Record For The Greatest Number Of Blatant Lies And Misrepresentations Slipped Into A Single Political Speech.” “Deceiving -- On the other hand, to anyone paying the slightest bit of attention to facts, Ryan’s speech was an apparent attempt to set the world record for the greatest number of blatant lies and misrepresentations slipped into a single political speech. On this measure, while it was Romney who ran the Olympics, Ryan earned the gold. … Ryan may have helped solve some of the likeability problems facing Romney, but ultimately by trying to deceive voters about basic facts and trying to distract voters from his own record, Ryan’s speech caused a much larger problem for himself and his running mate.” [Sally Kohn Opinion, Fox News, 8/30/12]Washington Post Editorial: Ryan’s Speech Was A “Slashing And, In Many Elements, Misleading Indictment Of President Obama As Both A Spent Force And A Threat To American Freedom.” “That, however, wasn’t on Mr. Ryan’s agenda. Instead he offered a speech that was part introduction of himself and his small-town origins, part testimonial to his running mate and — in largest part — a slashing and, in many elements, misleading indictment of President Obama as both a spent force and a threat to American freedom.” [Washington Post, Editorial, 8/29/12]Washington Post’s Jonathan Bernstein: Proper Response To Ryan’s Convention Speech Is To Call Out His “Flat-Out Lies To The American People.” “But really, the proper response to a speech like this isn’t to carefully analyze the logic, or to find instances of hypocracy [sic]; it’s to call the speaker out for telling flat-out lies to the American people. Paul Ryan has had what I’ve long thought was an undeserved good reputation among many in the press and in Washington. It shouldn’t survive tonight’s speech.” [Jonathan Bernstein, Washington Post, 8/29/12]RYAN’S SPEECH WAS DAMAGING TO ROMNEY, AND HE DUCKED TOUGH ISSUESWashington Post Editorial: “If Mr. Ryan And Mitt Romney Want Credit For Not Ducking, And If They Truly Believe That Voters Are Entitled To The Clearest Possible Choice, It Would Behoove The Candidates To Offer More Details About What, Precisely, Voters Are Choosing.” “Those are fine words; we have heard the sentiment before, including from the incumbent president. But if Mr. Ryan and Mitt Romney want credit for not ducking, and if they truly believe that voters are entitled to the clearest possible choice, it would behoove the candidates to offer more details about what, precisely, voters are choosing.” [Washington Post, Editorial, 8/29/12]New York Times Editorial: Ryan’s Speech “Ducked The Tough Issues And Blamed Others For The Problems.” “All without the slightest hint of how that supposed reform or strengthening would take place, regarding that program and many others. ‘We will not duck the tough issues; we will lead,’ said Representative Paul Ryan, in his speech accepting the vice-presidential nomination. ‘We will not spend four years blaming others; we will take responsibility.’ Sounds great, except that the speech ducked the tough issues and blamed others for the problems.” [New York Times,Editorial, 8/29/12]Washington Post’s Ezra Klein: Even When You “Bend Over Backward To Be Generous” To Romney-Ryan, “You Often Find Yourself Forced Into The Same Conclusion: This Doesn’t Add Up, This Doesn’t Have Enough Details To Be Evaluated, Or This Isn’t True.” “Even if you bend over backward to be generous to them — as the Tax Policy Center did when they granted the Romney campaign a slew of essentially impossible premises in order to evaluate their tax plan — you often find yourself forced into the same conclusion: This doesn’t add up, this doesn’t have enough details to be evaluated, or this isn’t true.” [Ezra Klein, Washington Post, 8/30/12]CONSTITUENCY GROUPSAFRICAN-AMERICANPRO-POTUSPresident Obama Is Fighting To Restore Economic Security And Opportunity For African AmericansTHE UNEMPLOYMENT RATE AMONG AFRICAN AMERICANS HAS DECLINED 3.3PERCENTAGE POINTS IN THE LAST 31 MONTHSThe Unemployment Rate For African Americans Has Declined 3.3 Percentage Points Since March 2010. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the unemployment rate among African Americans declined from 16.7 percent in March 2010 to 13.4 percent in September 2012. [Bureau Of Labor Statistics, accessed 10/7/12]Unemployment Among African Americans Increased 3.6 Percentage Points Between January 2008 And January 2009. In January 2008, the unemployment rate among African Americans was 9.1 percent. In January 2009, the unemployment rate among African Americans was 12.7 percent, increasing 3.6 percent over the year. [Bureau Of Labor Statistics, accessed 6/3/12]THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION HAS BOOSTED LENDING TO AFRICAN AMERICAN SMALL BUSINESSESUnder President Obama’s Leadership The Minority Business Development Agency Helped African American Business Owners Obtain 155 Percent More Contracts And Capital Than Over The Prior Three Year Period. “During the 3-year period of the Obama Administration, MBDA assisted 7,219 African American owned businesses in obtaining $5.5 billion in contracts and capital— a 155 percent increase over the prior 3-year period.” [Minority Business Development Agency Annual Performance Report, FY2011]“Since The Start Of The [Obama] Administration Through March 31, 2012, Over $1.5 Billion Through Over 5,600 SBA Loans Went To African American Small Businesses.” [White House National Economic Council, May 2012]PRESIDENT OBAMA CUT TAXES FOR MILLIONS OF AFRICAN AMERICAN FAMILIES AND HELPED KEEP FAMILIES OUT OF POVERTYPresident Obama Fought To Continue The Payroll Tax Cut, Ensuring That Taxes Do Not Go Up On Nearly 20 Million African American Workers In 2012. “The President fought to continue the payroll tax cut, ensuring that taxes do not go up on nearly 20 million African-American workers, and to extend unemployment insurance so that Americans looking for work do not lose this crucial support.” [White House Fact Sheet, accessed 5/24/12]An Estimated 2.2 Million African American Families And Roughly 4.7 Million African American Children Benefit From Earned Income And Child Tax Credits Included In The Recovery Act And Extended In 2010. “In addition to extending unemployment insurance for 13 months, the bill builds off the gains made in the Recovery Act. The agreement will extend key provisions such as the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) and the Child Tax Credit (CTC) that disproportionately help African American families and children. An estimated 2.2 million African American families will benefit from the expansion in the EITC and CTC that are extended in this agreement.These credits help roughly 4.7 million African American children or almost half (44 percent) of all African American children.”? [The White House, 12/10/10]Expansions Of Tax Credits In The Recovery Act Kept 1.3 Million African Americans Above The Poverty Line In 2010. “Using the NAS measure to analyze newly released Census data for 2010, we find that the six Recovery Act initiatives kept 6.9 million people above the poverty line in 2010 … These initiatives had a wide reach across the population, reaching a majority of American households. The 6.9 million people kept above the poverty line in 2010 included an estimated 2.5 million children, 200,000 seniors, 3.1 million non-Latino whites, 1.3 million non-Latino blacks, and 2.0 million Latinos.” [Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 11/7/11]PRESIDENT OBAMA’S DECISION TO RESCUE THE AMERICAN AUTO INDUSTRY SAVED A MILLION JOBS AND PREVENTED A COLLAPSE THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN “CATASTROPHIC” FOR AFRICAN AMERICAN WORKERSCenter For Automotive Research: The Auto Industry Rescue Saved Over 1.1 Million Jobs In 2009. According to a report on the? difference between orderly bankruptcy proceedings assisted by government-provided debtor-in-possession financing versus an uncontrolled bankruptcy for American automakers, the Center for Automotive Research estimates that emergency loans to American automakers saved 1.14 million jobs in 2009. [Center for Automotive Research Report, 11/7/10]Economic Policy Institute Economist Robert E. Scott And Expert Christian Dorsey: The Consequences Of An Auto Industry Collapse Would Be “Catastrophic For African Americans.”?In an Economic Policy Institute economic brief, economist Robert E. Scott and EPI Director of External and Government Affairs Christian Dorsey wrote, “The motor vehicle and parts industry, a sector of the economy that has been particularly welcoming to African Americans, is becoming a shrinking island of prosperity… The consequences of an auto industry collapse—which could eliminate up to 3.3 million U.S. jobs, as shown in the Briefing Paper When Giants Fall—would be nothing less than catastrophic for African Americans.” [Economic Policy Institute,?12/5/08]PRESIDENT OBAMA SIGNED LEGISLATION TO DOUBLE THE AMOUNT OF PELL GRANT FUNDING, HELPING ALMOST HALF OF AFRICAN AMERICAN STUDENTS AFFORD COLLEGEPresident Obama Signed Legislation That Has Doubled Funding For Pell Grants And Is Expected To Increase The Maximum Pell Grant Award To $5,975 By 2017 And Provide 820,000 More Grants By 2020. “The law will increase Pell Grant grants along with inflation in the next few years, which should raise the maximum grant to $5,975 from $5,550 by 2017, according to the White House, and it will also provide 820,000 more grants by 2020. Including money from last year’s stimulus program and regular budget increases, the White House said Mr. Obama has now doubled spending on Pell Grants.” [New York Times, The Caucus Blog, 03/30/2010] The Administration’s Investment In Pell Grants Will Benefit An Additional 200,000 African American Students Over The Next Decade. “The Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act provided direct support for more than 820,000 additional Pell Grant recipients over the next decade—including more than 200,000 African American students.” [White House, 11/2011]Almost Half Of All African American Undergraduate Students Receive Pell Grants. “As the main source of federal aid for college students, Pell Grants help more than 8 million students a year afford college. Almost half of all African American undergraduate students receive federal Pell Grant awards.” [White House, 11/2011]PRESIDENT OBAMA SIGNED LEGISLATION TO VASTLY INCREASE FUNDING FOR HISTORICALLY BLACK COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIESThe President Signed Legislation That Provides $2.55 Billion In Funding For Historically Black Colleges And Universities And Minority-Serving Institutions Over The Next 10 Years. “The [Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act] provides $2.55 billion ($255 million each year for 2010-2019) to continue funding for the Investment in Historically Black Colleges and Universities and Other Minority Serving Institutions Program contained in section 371 of the Higher Education Act. Created in College Cost Reduction and Access Act, the program received $255 million in mandatory funding for both 2008 and 2009. H.R. 4872 extends this program by providing $255 million in mandatory funding for each of the next ten years.” [American Council on Education, Accessed 07/27/11]President Obama Signed Into Law An Investment Of $850 Million In Historically Black Colleges And Universities And $150 Million In Predominantly Black Institutions. “That is why the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act, signed by the President, provided $850 million for HBCUs and $150 million for PBIs in mandatory funding over ten years. These dollars can be used to renew, reform, and expand programming to ensure that students at these colleges and universities are given every chance to live up to their full potential.” [White House, 11/2011]President Obama Signed An Executive Order To Strengthen The White House Initiative On Historically Black Colleges And Universities. “President Obama signed an executive order Friday strengthening the White House Initiative on Historically Black Colleges and Universities, a document first signed by President Carter 30 years ago to ‘overcome the effects of discriminatory treatment’ and expand capacity at the institutions.” [Washington Post, 02/26/10]PRESIDENT OBAMA SIGNED THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT INTO LAW TO VASTLY EXPAND HEALTH CARE ACCESS FOR MILLIONS OF AFRICAN AMERICANSThe Affordable Care Act Is Expanding Access to Affordable, Quality Health Care For The 8 Million African Americans Who Currently Lack Coverage. "The Affordable Care Act will,...[starting in] 2014, make health care more accessible and affordable for the 8 million African Americans who currently lack coverage." [White House, Accessed 9/12/12]An Estimated 509,000 African-American Young Adults Acquired Health Insurance Due To The Affordable Care Act. Because the Affordable Care Act requires insurance plans to allow young adults up to age 26 to remain on their parents’ plans, 509,000 African American young adults who would otherwise be uninsured gained coverage through the end of 2010. [Department of Health and Human Services, July 2012]One Fourth Of African Americans Who Have Pre-Existing Conditions Will No Longer Be Denied Access To Health Insurance. “President Barack Obama signed into law the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010(H.R. 3590) and the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010(H.R.4872), which collectively make up the health reform law and provide comprehensive reforms to our fragmented healthcare and public health systems. These sweeping changes will… Strengthen protections for about one fourth of African Americans who have a pre-existing condition by prohibiting discrimination based on health status.” [Congressional Black Caucus Foundation, 10/2010] Health Care Reform Provides $11 Billion Over The Next Five Years For Community Health Centers, Allowing Them To Double The Number Of Patients They Can Care For To 40 Million By 2019. “CHCs will play a key role in providing primary care and preventive services to newly insured minorities and historically underserved populations.?The new law provides $11 billion over the next five years enabling health centers to double the number of patients to 40 million by 2019.” [National Conference of State Legislatures, 04/2011]The Majority Of Patients Cared For At Community Health Centers In 2009 Were Racial And Ethnic Minorities; 28% Were African American. “in 2009, the majority of health center patients were racial and ethnic minorities; 34 percent of health center patients are Hispanic or Latino and 28 percent are African-American.”[National Conference of State Legislatures, 04/2011]CONTRASTRomney Would Much Of President Obama’s Accomplishments For The African-American CommunityPRESIDENT OBAMA CUT TAXES FOR MILLIONS OF AFRICAN AMERICAN FAMILIES President Obama Fought To Continue The Payroll Tax Cut, Ensuring That Taxes Do Not Go Up On Nearly 20 Million African American Workers In 2012. “The President fought to continue the payroll tax cut, ensuring that taxes do not go up on nearly 20 million African-American workers, and to extend unemployment insurance so that Americans looking for work do not lose this crucial support.” [White House Fact Sheet, accessed 5/24/12]PRESIDENT OBAMA SIGNED LEGISLATION TO DOUBLE THE AMOUNT OF PELL GRANT FUNDING, HELPING ALMOST HALF OF AFRICAN AMERICAN STUDENTS AFFORD COLLEGEThe Obama Administration’s Investment In Pell Grants Will Benefit An Additional 200,000 African American Students Over The Next Decade. “The Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act provided direct support for more than 820,000 additional Pell Grant recipients over the next decade—including more than 200,000 African American students.” [White House, 11/2011]Almost Half Of All African American Undergraduate Students Receive Pell Grants. “As the main source of federal aid for college students, Pell Grants help more than 8 million students a year afford college. Almost half of all African American undergraduate students receive federal Pell Grant awards.” [White House, 11/2011]PRESIDENT OBAMA SIGNED THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT INTO LAW TO VASTLY EXPAND HEALTH CARE ACCESS FOR MILLIONS OF AFRICAN AMERICANSThe Affordable Care Act Is Expanding Access to Affordable, Quality Health Care For The 8 Million African Americans Who Currently Lack Coverage. "The Affordable Care Act will,...[starting in] 2014, make health care more accessible and affordable for the 8 million African Americans who currently lack coverage." [White House, Accessed 9/12/12]An Estimated 509,000 African-American Young Adults Acquired Health Insurance Due To The Affordable Care Act. Because the Affordable Care Act requires insurance plans to allow young adults up to age 26 to remain on their parents’ plans, 509,000 African American young adults who would otherwise be uninsured gained coverage through the end of 2010. [Department of Health and Human Services, July 2012]ROMNEY WOULD RAISE TAXES ON THE MIDDLE CLASS, SLASH PELL GRANTS AND REPEAL OBAMACAREReuters Headline: “Romney Tax Plan Helps Rich, Hurts Middle Class-Study.” [Reuters, 8/1/12]Boston Globe Headline: “Mitt Romney’s Tax Plan Would Offer Big Cuts To Millionaires, Raise Taxes On Middle Class, Brookings Analysts Say.” [Boston Globe, 8/1/12]If Cuts Were Applied Across The Board, The Ryan Budget Would Slash Education, Meaning “9.6 Million Students Would See Their Pell Grants Fall By More Than $1,000 In 2014, And, Over The Next Decade, Over One Million Students Would Lose Support Altogether.” “Yesterday, House Republicans released their budget resolution for FY 2013… On top of the roughly $1 trillion in cuts in the Budget Control Act, it would be difficult to overstate the radicalism of the domestic cuts proposed by the House budget resolution. In 2013, it would cut annual non-defense funding by 5 percent. By 2014, the resolution would cut this funding by 19 percent in purely nominal terms… 9.6 million students would see their Pell Grants fall by more than $1000 in 2014, and, over the next decade, over one million students would lose support altogether.” [Jeff Zients, Acting Director of the Office of Management and Budget, , 3/21/12]Romney: “If I’m President, I Will Repeal Obamacare, And I’ll Kill It Dead On Its First Day.” [Romney town hall, Collinsville, IL, 3/17/12]LATINOSPRO-POTUSPresident Obama Is Fighting To Restore Economic Security And Opportunity For LatinosUNDER PRESIDENT OBAMA’S LEADERSHIP, THE UNEMPLOYMENT RATE AMONG HISPANIC AMERICANS HAS DECLINED 2.7 PERCENTAGE POINTS OVER THE LAST 31 MONTHSThe Unemployment Rate For Hispanic Americans Has Declined 2.7 Percentage Points In The Last 31 Months. In March 2010, the unemployment rate among Hispanic Americans was 12.6 percent. In September 2012, the unemployment rate for Hispanic Americans was 9.9 percent, declining 2.7 percentage points over the last 31 months. [Bureau Of Labor Statistics accessed 10/7/12]The Unemployment Rate For Hispanics Is Lower Than The Month President Obama Took Office. In January 2009, the unemployment rate for Hispanics was 10 percent, and in September 2012, the unemployment rate for Hispanics is 9.9 percent. [Bureau Of Labor Statistics, accessed 10/7/12]The Unemployment Rate Among Hispanic Americans Increased 3.5 Percent Between January 2008 And January 2009. In January 2008, the unemployment rate among Hispanic Americans was 6.5 percent. In January 2009, the unemployment rate among Hispanic Americans was 10 percent. [Bureau of Labor Statistics, accessed 4/20/2012]PRESIDENT OBAMA CUT TAXES FOR MILLIONS OF WORKING LATINOS AND THEIR FAMILIESPresident Obama Signed And Secured An Extension Of The Payroll Tax Cut, Ensuring That Taxes Do Not Go Up On Nearly 25 Million Hispanic Workers In 2012. “The President fought to continue the payroll tax cut into 2012, ensuring that taxes do not go up on nearly 25 million Hispanic workers, and to extend unemployment insurance so that Americans looking for work do not lose this crucial support. In addition, the President put forward a broader jobs package that would cut taxes for small businesses, put teachers and first responders back on the job, help the unemployed get back to work, and rebuild our infrastructure.” [White House Fact Sheet, accessed 8/7/12]President Obama Secured Vital Tax Relief For 3.7 Million Hispanic Families – Including 8 Million Hispanic Children -- In Order To Create Jobs And Accelerate Economic Growth. “In December 2010, the President and the Administration built on this strong record to pass a bipartisan tax cut package agreement that not only secured vital tax relief and investments in our workers—something that will create jobs and accelerate economic growth—but also provides specific support for Hispanic families. Building off the gains made in the Recovery Act, the tax agreement extends key provisions including the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) and the Child Tax Credit (CTC) that directly benefit Hispanic parents and children. These provisions of the new law will benefit an estimated 3.7 million Hispanic families—including 8 million Hispanic children. And narly one million Hispanics looking for work weren’t forced to lose their unemployment benefits at the end of last year.” [White House report, March 2011] THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION HAS SUPPOSED OVER $3,8 BILLION IN LOANS TO HISPANIC-OWNED SMALL BUSINESSES AND EXPANDED LENDING TO MINORITY-OWNED BUSINESSESThe Obama Administration Has Supported Over 10,800 Loans To Hispanic-Owned Small Businesses Totaling More Than $3.8 Billion. “Since the start of the Administration through March 31, 2012, over $3.8 billion through over 10,800 SBA loans went to Hispanic-owned small businesses including over $128 million through nearly 300 international trade loans.” [National Economic Council, May 2012]President Obama Signed The Small Business Jobs Act Of 2010 And Put More Capital Into The Hands Of Minority-Owned Businesses By Supporting More Than $12 Billion In Small Business Lending. “SBA loan provisions, with the 90% guarantee and reduced fees, were extended through 2010. The $505 million in subsidy for Jobs Act loans supported more than $12 billion in overall small business lending. [U.S. Small Business Administration, Accessed 08/02/11]THE RECOVERY ACT KEPT 2 MILLION LATINOS ABOVE THE POVERTY LINE IN 2010 Six Recovery Act Initiatives Kept An Estimated 2 Million Latinos Above The Poverty Line In 2010.“Using the NAS measure to analyze newly released Census data for 2010, we find that the six Recovery Act initiatives kept 6.9 million people above the poverty line in 2010…These initiatives had a wide reach across the population, reaching a majority of American households. The 6.9 million people kept above the poverty line in 2010 included an estimated 2.5 million children, 200,000 seniors, 3.1 million non-Latino whites, 1.3 million non-Latino blacks, and 2.0 million Latinos.” [Center On Budget And Policy Priorities, 11/7/2011]PRESIDENT OBAMA EXPANDED NUTRITION ASSISTANCE TO HISPANIC FAMILIES AND PROPOSED EXTENDING UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITSThe Administration Expanded Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Benefits And Helped Keep An Additional 3.9 Million People – Including 1.7 Million Children – Above The Poverty Line In 2010. “The Administration also expanded Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits, a critical program which helped keep an additional 3.9 million people, including 1.7 million children, above the poverty line in 2010.” [White House, October 2011]19% Of SNAP Recipients Are Hispanic. [Department of Agriculture Fact Sheet, May 2011]President Obama Has Proposed Extending Unemployment Compensation Benefits, Which Would Support An Additional 900,000 Hispanics. “As part of the American Jobs Act, President Obama has proposed extending unemployment compensation benefits for another year. …Without an extension, an additional 1.2 million African Americans and an additional 900,000 Hispanics, two groups particularly affected by high incidence of unemployment and poverty, will be among those exhausting their benefits by the end of 2012.” [Unemployment Insurance Extensions and Reforms in the American Jobs Act, December 2011]IN 2011, THE POVERTY RATE AMONG HISPANIC AMERICANS DROPPED 1.2 PERCENTAGE POINTS278,000 Fewer Hispanic Americans Were Living In Poverty In 2011. In 2010, 13.522 million Hispanic Americans were living in poverty. In 2011, that number dropped to 13.244 million. [U.S. Census Bureau, 09/12/12]The Poverty Rate Among Hispanic Americans Declined 1.2 Percentage Points In 2011, From 26.5 Percent To 25.3 Percent. In 2010, the poverty rate among Hispanics was 26.5 Percent. In 2011, the poverty rate among Hispanics was 25.3 percent. [U.S. Census Bureau, 09/12/12]Center On Budget And Policy Priorities: Key Labor Market Data Indicates That The Poverty Rate Will Likely Fall In 2012. “The poverty rate is likely to start falling in 2012.? Key labor market data — particularly the strength of private, non-farm job creation and the drop in the number of unemployed workers — are more positive so far in 2012 than they were in 2011.” [Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 09/12/12] PRESIDENT OBAMA HAS WORKED TO ENSURE THAT HIGHER EDUCATION IS IN REACH FOR ALL LATINOS President Obama Signed Legislation To Strengthen Hispanic-Serving Higher Education Institutions By Investing Over $1 Billion In Over The Next Decade. “The Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act also strengthens Hispanic-Serving Institutions—that is, a public or private nonprofit college or university with a student body that is at least 25 percent Latino—by investing more than $1 billion in these institutions over the next decade. More than half of America’s Hispanic and Latino undergraduates attend a Hispanic-Serving Institution. Hispanic-Serving Institutions serve a higher proportion of low- and middle-income students than their peers.” [White House, March 2011] Hispanic-Serving Institutions Provide An Education To Over Half Of America’s Latino Undergraduates. “Over half of America’s Latino undergraduates attend a Hispanic-Serving Institution – that is, a public or private nonprofit college or university that has a student body that is at least 25 percent Latino.” [White House, Accessed 10/04/11]President Obama Signed Student Loan Reform That Would Provide An Estimated 150,000 Additional Pell Grant Awards To Hispanic Students By 2020 And New Protections For 143,000 Latino Student Borrowers. “By signing the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act , the President ensured increased affordability of and access to student loans for American students. The Department of Education estimates that some 150,000 additional Pell Grant awards will be made to Hispanic students by 2020 under this new law, and that 143,000 Latino student borrowers will avail themselves of new protections for student loan repayment which ensure affordability.” [White House, March 2011] In The 2007 – 2008 Award Year, 39.4 Percent Of Hispanic Undergraduates Received Pell Grants. [National Center for Education Statistics, 02/2011]THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT WILL MAKE INSURANCE COVERAGE MORE ACCESSIBLE AND AFFORDABLE FOR LATINOS, ELIMINATED LIFETIME LIMITS, AND EXPANDED PREVENTIVE SERVICES “The Affordable Care Act Will, By 2014, Make Health Care More Accessible And Affordable For As Many As 9 Million Latinos Who Currently Lack Coverage." [White House, February 2012]Because Of The Affordable Care Act, Lifetime Limits Have Been Eliminated For 11.8 Million Latinos. “Among the 105 million Americans for whom lifetime limits have been eliminated as a result of the Affordable Care Act, 75.3 million are non-Latino White, 11.8 million are Latino, 10.4 million are African-American, 5.5 million are Asian, and approximately 500,000 are American Indian or Alaska Native.” [Department of Health & Human Services, 03/2012]In 2011, An Estimated 6.1 Million Latinos Have Access To Expanded Preventive Services With No Cost Sharing Under The Affordable Care Act. [Department of Health and Human Services, 4/10/12]THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT STRENGTHENS MEDICARE FOR LATINO SENIORSAn Estimated 3.9 Million Latino Medicare Beneficiaries Now Have Access To Expanded Free Preventive Services Under The Affordable Care Act [Department of Health and Human Services, 4/10/12]Under The Affordable Care Act, Nearly 532,000 Hispanic Beneficiaries Received At Least One Free Preventive Benefit In Medicare In 2011. “According to preliminary numbers, at least 25,720,996 million Americans took advantage of at least one free preventive benefit in Medicare in 2011, including the new Annual Wellness Visit. This represents 73.3% of Medicare fee‐for‐service (FFS) beneficiaries, including 2,373,810 African‐American beneficiaries, 531,911 Hispanic beneficiaries” [Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services, 02/2012]The Affordable Care Act Closes The Prescription Drug Coverage Gap—The “Doughnut Hole”—In Medicare Part D By 2020. “The Affordable Care Act includes benefits to make your Medicare prescription drug coverage (Part D) more affordable. It does this by gradually closing the gap in drug coverage known as the ‘Donut Hole.’...the gap is closed in 2020.” [, 08/03/11]Because Of The Affordable Care Act, Americans With Medicare Will Save $5,000 Through 2022. “Because of the health care law – the Affordable Care Act – the average person with traditional Medicare will save $5,000 from 2010 to 2022, according to a report today from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.” [Department of Health and Human Services, Press Release, 9/21/12]5.5 Million Seniors And People With Disabilities Have Saved Over $4.5 Billion On Prescription Drug Costs Since The Law Was Enacted. “HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius also announced that, because of the health care law, more than 5.5 million seniors and people with disabilities saved nearly $4.5 billion on prescription drugs since the law was enacted.” ?[Department of Health and Human Services, Press Release, 9/21/12]In The First 8 Months Of 2012 Alone, Medicare Beneficiaries In The Doughnut Hole Saved On Average Over $641 On Their Prescription Drugs. “Seniors in the Medicare prescription drug coverage gap known as the donut hole have saved an average of $641 in the first eight months of 2012 alone.”?[Department of Health and Human Services, Press Release, 9/21/12]PRESIDENT OBAMA HAS EXPANDED HEALTH CARE COVERAGE FOR YOUNG ADULTS An Estimated 913,000 Latino Young Adults Acquired Health Insurance Due To The Affordable Care Act. Because the Affordable Care Act requires insurance plans to allow young adults up to age 26 to remain on their parents’ plans, 913,000 Latino young adults who would otherwise be uninsured gained coverage through the end of 2010. [Department of Health and Human Services, July 2012]UnemploymentUNDER PRESIDENT OBAMA, HISPANIC UNEMPLOYMENT HAS DROPPED, AND FACT-CHECKERS HAVE CRITICIZED ROMNEY FOR CHERRY-PICKING UNEMPLOYMENT NUMBERSUNDER PRESIDENT OBAMA’S LEADERSHIP, THE UNEMPLOYMENT RATE AMONG HISPANIC AMERICANS HAS DECLINED 2.7 PERCENTAGE POINTS IN THE LAST 31 MONTHSThe Unemployment Rate For Hispanic Americans Has Declined 2.7 Percentage Points In The Last 31 Months. In March 2010, the unemployment rate among Hispanic Americans was 12.6 percent. In September 2012, the unemployment rate for Hispanic Americans was 9.9 percent, declining 2.7 percentage points over the last 31 months. [Bureau Of Labor Statistics accessed 10/7/12]The Unemployment Rate Among Hispanic Americans Increased 3.5 Percent Between January 2008 And January 2009. In January 2008, the unemployment rate among Hispanic Americans was 6.5 percent. In January 2009, the unemployment rate among Hispanic Americans was 10 percent. [Bureau of Labor Statistics, accessed 4/20/2012]FACT-CHECKERS SAID ROMNEY CHERRY-PICKED NUMBERS TO CRITICIZE PRESIDENT OBAMA FOR HISPANIC UNEMPLOYMENT? PolitiFact: Romney Is “Clearly Cherry-Picking” Employment Numbers To Make A Claim About Hispanic Unemployment Under President Obama. “Obama took office on Jan. 20, 2009, about two-thirds of the way through the month. One could just as easily have considered the first month on his watch to be February 2009 -- the first month during which he was president for the entire time. And if you start the clock in February 2009, just one month later, the picture is significantly different. In February 2009, the Hispanic unemployment rate was 11.1 percent. Using that as the baseline, Hispanic unemployment fell by eight-tenths of a percentage point by March 2012 -- instead of rising three-tenths of a percentage point….The point isn't that starting the count in February is vastly superior to starting in January. But when two plausible options offer such widely divergent results, picking the one that spins the claim in a way much more favorable to Romney is clearly cherry-picking.” [PolitiFact, 4/24/2012]PolitiFact Rated Romney’s Claim “Mostly False,” Noting That Under Equally Plausible Timelines, “The Numbers Tell A Dramatically Different Story.”? “The Romney campaign said that "the total unemployment rate for Hispanic or Latino workers has increased from 10% to 10.3%" between January 2009 and March 2012. The numbers the Romney team cites are accurate, but they may not be statistically significant, and if you use equally plausible time frames, the numbers tell a dramatically different story. These amount to missing critical facts that would have given a different impression. That's our definition of Mostly False.”[PolitiFact, 4/24/2012]CONTRASTRomney Would Roll Back Many Of President Obama’s Accomplishments For The Latino CommunityPRESIDENT OBAMA CUT TAXES FOR MILLIONS OF WORKING LATINOS AND THEIR FAMILIESPresident Obama Signed And Secured An Extension Of The Payroll Tax Cut, Ensuring That Taxes Do Not Go Up On Nearly 25 Million Hispanic Workers In 2012. “The President fought to continue the payroll tax cut into 2012, ensuring that taxes do not go up on nearly 25 million Hispanic workers, and to extend unemployment insurance so that Americans looking for work do not lose this crucial support. In addition, the President put forward a broader jobs package that would cut taxes for small businesses, put teachers and first responders back on the job, help the unemployed get back to work, and rebuild our infrastructure.” [White House Fact Sheet, accessed 8/7/12]President Obama Secured Vital Tax Relief For 3.7 Million Hispanic Families – Including 8 Million Hispanic Children -- In Order To Create Jobs And Accelerate Economic Growth. “In December 2010, the President and the Administration built on this strong record to pass a bipartisan tax cut package agreement that not only secured vital tax relief and investments in our workers—something that will create jobs and accelerate economic growth—but also provides specific support for Hispanic families. Building off the gains made in the Recovery Act, the tax agreement extends key provisions including the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) and the Child Tax Credit (CTC) that directly benefit Hispanic parents and children. These provisions of the new law will benefit an estimated 3.7 million Hispanic families—including 8 million Hispanic children. And narly one million Hispanics looking for work weren’t forced to lose their unemployment benefits at the end of last year.” [White House report, March 2011] PRESIDENT OBAMA HAS WORKED TO ENSURE THAT HIGHER EDUCATION IS IN REACH FOR ALL LATINOS President Obama Signed Student Loan Reform That Would Provide An Estimated 150,000 Additional Pell Grant Awards To Hispanic Students By 2020 And New Protections For 143,000 Latino Student Borrowers. “By signing the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act , the President ensured increased affordability of and access to student loans for American students. The Department of Education estimates that some 150,000 additional Pell Grant awards will be made to Hispanic students by 2020 under this new law, and that 143,000 Latino student borrowers will avail themselves of new protections for student loan repayment which ensure affordability.” [White House, March 2011] In The 2007 – 2008 Award Year, 39.4 Percent Of Hispanic Undergraduates Received Pell Grants. [National Center for Education Statistics, 02/2011]THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT WILL MAKE INSURANCE COVERAGE MORE ACCESSIBLE AND AFFORDABLE FOR LATINOS, ELIMINATED LIFETIME LIMITS, AND EXPANDED PREVENTIVE SERVICES “The Affordable Care Act Will, By 2014, Make Health Care More Accessible And Affordable For As Many As 9 Million Latinos Who Currently Lack Coverage." [White House, February 2012]An Estimated 913,000 Latino Young Adults Acquired Health Insurance Due To The Affordable Care Act. Because the Affordable Care Act requires insurance plans to allow young adults up to age 26 to remain on their parents’ plans, 913,000 Latino young adults who would otherwise be uninsured gained coverage through the end of 2010. [Department of Health and Human Services, July 2012]ROMNEY WOULD RAISE TAXES ON THE MIDDLE CLASS, SLASH PELL GRANTS AND REPEAL OBAMACAREReuters Headline: “Romney Tax Plan Helps Rich, Hurts Middle Class-Study.” [Reuters, 8/1/12]Boston Globe Headline: “Mitt Romney’s Tax Plan Would Offer Big Cuts To Millionaires, Raise Taxes On Middle Class, Brookings Analysts Say.” [Boston Globe, 8/1/12]If Cuts Were Applied Across The Board, The Ryan Budget Would Slash Education, Meaning “9.6 Million Students Would See Their Pell Grants Fall By More Than $1,000 In 2014, And, Over The Next Decade, Over One Million Students Would Lose Support Altogether.” “Yesterday, House Republicans released their budget resolution for FY 2013… On top of the roughly $1 trillion in cuts in the Budget Control Act, it would be difficult to overstate the radicalism of the domestic cuts proposed by the House budget resolution. In 2013, it would cut annual non-defense funding by 5 percent. By 2014, the resolution would cut this funding by 19 percent in purely nominal terms… 9.6 million students would see their Pell Grants fall by more than $1000 in 2014, and, over the next decade, over one million students would lose support altogether.” [Jeff Zients, Acting Director of the Office of Management and Budget, , 3/21/12]Romney: “If I’m President, I Will Repeal Obamacare, And I’ll Kill It Dead On Its First Day.” [Romney town hall, Collinsville, IL, 3/17/12]LGBTPRO-POTUSPresident Obama Has Fought For Equality For LGBT AmericansPRESIDENT OBAMA HAS FOUGHT TO ACHIEVE EQUALITY FOR LGBT AMERICANSTHE ADVOCATE CALLED PRESIDENT OBAMA A “TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADER AND OUR BEST CHOICE FOR PRESIDENT.” In Its First Endorsement In Decades, The Advocate Called President Obama A “Transformational Leader And Our Best Choice For President.” “The Advocate’s last endorsement was decades ago, but the president’s statement of May 9, unequivocally in favor of marriage equality, along with his record on LGBT rights, has distinguished him for the ages and has made it clear that he is a transformational leader and our best choice for president.” [Advocate Editorial Board Endorsement, 7/6/12]PRESIDENT OBAMA REPEALED THE DISCRIMINATORY DON’T ASK, DON’T TELL POLICYPresident Obama Signed The Repeal Of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” “The military’s longstanding ban on service by gays and lesbians came to a historic and symbolic end on Wednesday, as President Obama signed legislation repealing ‘don’t ask, don’t tell,’ the contentious 17-year old Clinton-era law that sought to allow gays to serve under the terms of an uneasy compromise that required them to keep their sexuality a secret.” [New York Times, 12/22/10]PRESIDENT OBAMA AFFIRMED HIS PERSONAL SUPPORT FOR MARRIAGE EQUALITY, DECLARED THE DEFENSE OF MARRIAGE ACT UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND ENDORSED THE RESPECT FOR MARRIAGE ACTPresident Obama Affirmed His Personal Support For Marriage Equality. “It has always taken strong national leadership to expand equal rights in this country, and it has long been obvious that marriage rights are no exception. President Obama offered some of that leadership on Wednesday. ‘I think same-sex couples should be able to get married,’ Mr. Obama said in an interview with ABC News?that the White House arranged for the purpose of giving Mr. Obama a forum to say just that.” [Editorial, New York Times, 5/9/12]President Obama Declared The Defense Of Marriage Act Unconstitutional And Directed The Justice Department To Stop Defending The Law In Court. “President Obama, in a striking legal and political shift, has determined that the Defense of Marriage Act — the 1996 law that bars federal recognition of same-sex marriages — is unconstitutional, and has directed the Justice Department to stop defending the law in court, the administration said Wednesday.” [New York Times, 2/23/11]President Obama Endorsed The Respect For Marriage Act, A Legislative Effort To Repeal The Defense Of Marriage Act. “President Obama is throwing his support behind the Respect for Marriage Act - the bill to repeal the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, which banned the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriage even for couples married under state law. The president has ‘long called for a legislative appeal for the so-called Defense of Marriage Act, which continues to have a real impact on families,’ White House spokesman Jay Carney told reporters at Tuesday's briefing.” [National Journal: 7/19/11]ATTACKRomney And Ryan Opposed The Repeal Of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”ROMNEY AND RYAN OPPOSED THE REPEAL OF “DON’T ASK DON’T TELL” AND RYAN VOTED TO DELAY ITS IMPLEMENTATION 2011: Romney Said He Would Have Kept “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” In Place. At the New Hampshire primary debate Romney said of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell: “I believe that ‘don't ask/don't tell’ should have been kept in place until conflict was over.” [New Hampshire Debate, 6/13/11]2010: Ryan Voted Against Repealing The Military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” Policy. Paul Ryan, on December 15, 2010, voted against H.R.2965, a vote “against repealing the military's ‘don't ask, don't tell’ policy, which barred gay men and lesbians from serving openly.” The bill passed the House 250 to 175, passed the Senate 65 to 31 and was signed into law by President Obama. [HR 2965, Vote #638, 12/15/10 and USA Today, 8/23/12]Ryan Opposed Gay AdoptionRYAN VOTED TO BAN ADOPTION BY SAME SEX COUPLESRyan Voted In Favor Of Banning Adoption By Same-Sex Couples In District Of Columbia. In 1999, Ryan voted in favor of an amendment to bar joint adoptions in the District of Columbia by gays or other people who are not related by blood or marriage. The amendment failed 213-215. [HR 2587, Vote #346, 7/29/99; CQ Floor Votes]Washington Post: “The Amendment Would Have Prevented Unmarried Couples From Adopting Any Of The 3,100 Children In Foster Care” In Washington, DC. “The House defeated by a vote of 215 to 213 the amendment by Rep. Steve Largent (R-Okla.) that would have prevented unmarried couples from adopting any of the 3,100 children in foster care in the District. The measure, which passed the House last year but was removed by a House-Senate panel, was opposed by gay activists and others who argued that it would slow the pace of adoptions in the city. ‘The best interest of the child and parenting skills must be the sole factors for placement in safe and loving homes--not marital status or sexual orientation,’ said Rep. Constance A. Morella (Md.), one of 36 Republicans to vote against Largent's amendment.” [Washington Post, 7/30/99]Romney Supports A Federal Marriage Amendment, Outlawing Gay Marriage In States Where It’s LegalROMNEY VOWED TO “FIGHT FOR A FEDERAL AMENDMENT DEFINING MARRIAGE AS A RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ONE MAN AND ONE WOMAN”…Romney: “When I Am President, I Will Preserve The Defense Of Marriage Act And I Will Fight For A Federal Amendment Defining Marriage As A Relationship Between One Man And One Woman.” [Romney Prepared Remarks, Conservative Political Action Conference, 2/10/12]Romney Said He Supported A Constitutional Amendment To Ban Same-Sex Marriage Rather Than Leaving It Up To The States. At the New Hampshire primary debate John King asked, “Are you a George W. Bush Republican, meaning a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage, or a Dick Cheney who, like I believe, the congresswoman just said, this should be made -- this decision, same sex marriage, should be a state's decision?” … KING: “Governor Romney, constitutional amendment or state decision?” ROMNEY, “Constitutional.” [New Hampshire Debate, 6/13/11]…SUPERSEDING GAY MARRIAGE RIGHTS IN STATES 2011 Proposed Federal Marriage Amendment: “Marriage In The United States Shall Consist Only Of The Union Of A Man And A Woman. Neither This Constitution, Nor The Constitution Of Any State, Shall Be Construed To Require That Marriage Or The Legal Incidents Thereof Be Conferred Upon Any Union Other Than The Union Of A Man And A Woman.” “JOINT RESOLUTION. Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to marriage. Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States: ‘Article—‘Section 1. This article may be cited as the ‘Marriage Protection Amendment’. ‘Section 2. Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman.’” [H. J. Res. 45, introduced 3/3/11]Christian Post: A Federal Constitutional Amendment To Define Marriage Would Overturn State Laws Legalizing Gay Marriage. “Republican Rep. Michele Bachmann, who will officially announce her run for president Monday, said today she would support a federal constitutional amendment to define marriage as between a man and woman, thereby overturning New York's new law legalizing gay marriage. Speaking to Fox News Sunday, Bachmann said that if she were elected president she would back an amendment to define marriage as ‘between a man and a woman.’” [Christian Post, 6/26/11]Romney Opposes Civil UnionsROMNEY HAS OPPOSED CIVIL UNIONS SINCE “DAY ONE”…2012: Romney: “If A Civil Union Is Identical To Marriage Other Than In The Name, I Don't Support That.” [CBS News, 5/9/12; KCNC-TV (Denver, CO), 5/9/12]2005: Romney Said He Has Been Against Gay Marriage And Civil Unions Since “Day One.” “In February, Romney told a South Carolina Republican audience that ‘from day one, I’ve opposed the move for same-sex marriage and its equivalent, civil unions.’ But gay rights groups, including a leading GOP organization, accused Romney of flip-flopping, saying he had supported some benefits for gay couples in his 2002 campaign.” [Boston Globe, 6/17/05]…AND WOULD ALLOW STATES TO DENY BENEFITS TO GAY COUPLES IN DOMESTIC PARTNERSHIPS INCLUDING HOSPITAL VISITSRomney Would Leave “Each State Can Decide The Benefits Associated With People Who Live In Domestic Partnerships.” Romney: “My preference again would be to have a national standard, with one standard for the nation. Now that doesn’t mean that same sex couples can’t enter into domestic partnerships, and the benefits associated with domestic partnerships could be, developed from, by enterprise, by the state, by the federal government. So one could say for instance that in Iowa, a same sex couple can come together, can adopt a child. And they can have hospital visitation rights and so forth. I mean you could decide what benefits, each state can decide the benefits associated with people who live in domestic partnerships. But I believe the term marriage should be defined as a relationship between a man and a woman.” [Ames Tribune Editorial Board Interview, 12/29/11]Romney: “So One Could Say For Instance That In Iowa, A Same Sex Couple Can Come Together, Can Adopt A child. And They Can Have Hospital Visitation Rights And So Forth. I Mean You Could Decide What Benefits, Each State Can Decide The Benefits Associated With People Who Live In Domestic Partnerships.” [Ames Tribune Editorial Board Interview, 12/29/11]Romney: “States Are Able To Make Decisions With Regards To Domestic Partnership Benefits Such As Hospital Visitation Rights, Benefits And So Forth Of Various Kinds Could Be Determined State-By-State.” [Romney Press Availability, Oklahoma City, OK, 5/9/12; emphasis added]PRESIDENT BUSH AND VICE PRESIDENT CHENEY SUPPORT THE CIVIL UNIONS ROMNEY WOULD DENYPresident Bush: “I Don’t Think We should Deny People Rights To A Civil Union, A Legal Arrangement, If That’s What A State Chooses To Do So.” BUSH: “Well, I, I, I don't think we should deny people rights to a?civil union,?a?legal arrangement,?if that's what a state chooses to do so. CHARLES GIBSON: The Republican platform opposes it.? BUSH: Well, I don't. I view the definition of marriage different from?legal arrangements?that enable people to have rights. And I strongly believe that marriage ought to be defined as between, a union between a man and a woman. Look, if you're, if you're interested in preserving marriage as a union between a man and a woman, there is one way to do so, that's through the constitutional process. This is too important a decision to have a handful of judges making on behalf of the American people.” [President Bush Interview with Charles Gibson, ABC’s World News Tonight, 10/25/04]Former Vice President Dick Cheney: “I Think … Freedom Means Freedom For Everyone.” “Former Vice President Dick Cheney said Monday he supports gays being able to marry but believes states, not the federal government, should make the decision. ‘I think, you know, freedom means freedom for everyone,’ Cheney said in a speech at the National Press Club. ‘I think people ought to be free to enter into any kind of union they wish, any kind of arrangement they wish.’ Cheney, who has a gay daughter, said marriage has always been a state issue. ‘And I think that's the way it ought to be handled today, that is, on a state-by-state basis. Different states will make different decisions. But I don't have any problem with that. I think people ought to get a shot at that,’ he said.” [Associated Press, 6/2/09]Former Vice President Cheney: "I Certainly Don't Have Any Problem With It." "Former Vice President Dick Cheney and his wife, Lynne, surprised viewers on?Tuesday's episode of ‘The View’?when they expressed their support for gay marriage. 'I think freedom means freedom for everybody,' said the former vice president, 'and you ought to have the right to make whatever choice you want to make with respect to your own personal situation.' 'I certainly don't have any problem with it,' he added." [Huffington Post, 9/13/11]Romney Opposes Federal Employment Protections For Gays And LesbiansROMNEY OPPOSES THE EMPLOYMENT NON-DISCRIMINATION ACT2007: Romney Said He No Longer Supported A Federal Law To Ban Employment Discrimination Of Gays And Lesbians, But Would Support It On A State Level. “MR. RUSSERT:?You said that you would sponsor the Employment Nondiscrimination Act.? Do you still support it? GOV. ROMNEY:?At the state level.?I think it makes sense at the state level for states to put in provision of this. MR. RUSSERT: Now, you said you would sponsor it at the federal level. GOV. ROMNEY:?I would not support at the federal level, and I changed in that regard because I think that policy makes more sense to be evaluated or to be implemented at the state level.” [NBC, Meet the Press, 12/16/07]2006: Romney Said “ENDA Would Be An Overly Broad Law That Would Open A Litigation Floodgate And Unfairly Penalize Employers At The Hands Of Activist Judges” And Would Be “Special Legislation.” Romney, asked if he stood by a letter he wrote to the Log Cabin Republicans in 1994 where he indicated that he would support the Federal Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), replied, “No. I don’t see the need for new or special legislation. My experience over the past several years as governor has convinced me that ENDA would be an overly broad law that would open a litigation floodgate and unfairly penalize employers at the hands of activist judges.” [National Review Online, 12/14/06]VETERANSPRO-POTUSPresident Obama Is Committed To Supporting Our TroopsPRESIDENT OBAMA IS COMMITTED TO IMPROVING HEALTH SERVICES PROVIDED TO OUR VETERANS President Obama Has Boosted The Veterans Affairs Budget To Ensure That Veterans Receive Timely Access To The Highest Quality Benefits And Services, Which They Earned Through Their Service To Our Nation. [Veterans Affairs FY2013 Budget Fast Facts, Accessed 7/6/12]In 2010, President Obama Secured The Largest Single Year Increase In Funding For The Department Of Veterans Affairs In Over 30 Years. “Even amid competing priorities and a deepening recession, Mr. Obama last year managed to secure the biggest increase in funding for the Department of Veterans Affairs in 30 years. And as Congress begins writing spending bills for 2011, despite a spending freeze on some other domestic spending, he’s looking for more aid for veterans.” [Washington Times, 4/29/10]Since January 2009, Enrollment In VA Healthcare Has Grown By Nearly 800,000. “In addition, we have mounted an aggressive outreach campaign to educate Servicemembers and Veterans about VA's capabilities and their benefits. Since January 2009, enrollment in VA healthcare is up by nearly 800,000—a 10 percent increase. That's great news—we are expanding access.” [General Eric Shinseki, 7/24/12]THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION IS WORKING TO ENSURE THAT VETERANS RECEIVE THE BENEFITS THEY HAVE EARNED QUICKLYThe Department Of Veterans Affairs Has Aimed To Ensure Veteran Benefit Decisions Take No More Than 125 Days By 2015. “By 2015, VA’s highest priority goals in transformation are to eliminate the disability claims backlog and ensure all Veterans receive a quality decision (98 percent accuracy rate) in no more than 125 days.” [2011 VA Performance and Accountability Report, 11/15/11]The Veterans Benefits Administration Has Begun The Transition To A Paperless Benefits Management System And Has Expanded Its Work Force By 3,500 To Accelerate And Streamline The Claims Process. “The Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA) expanded its workforce by over 3,500 people, began accepting on-line applications for initial disability benefits, initiated an innovation competition, launched over 30 pilot programs and initiatives to identify best practices, and invested over $138 million in a paperless Veterans Benefits Management System that will be deployed in Fiscal Year 2012.” [The White House, 8/2/10]PRESIDENT OBAMA IS COMMITTED TO EXPANDING EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES FOR RETURNING VETERANS AND THEIR FAMILIESPresident Obama Implemented And Improved The Most Generous Educational Benefit For Veterans Since The Original GI Bill Of 1944. “Today, President Obama celebrated the beginning of implementation of the Post 9/11 GI Bill. This bill, through its Yellow Ribbon Programs and partnerships with colleges and universities throughout the nation, will provide our service members with the most generous educational benefits package since the original GI Bill of 1944.” [White House, 8/3/09]PRESIDENT OBAMA IS COMMITTED TO PUTTING VETERANS BACK TO WORKIn August 2011, President Obama Challenged The Private Sector To Hire Or Train 100,000 Unemployed Veterans Or Their Spouses By The End Of 2013. “A Challenge to the Private Sector to Hire or Train 100,000 Unemployed Veterans or Their Spouses by the End of 2013: The President will challenge businesses to commit to hire or provide training to unemployed veterans or their spouses. Joining Forces will lead this work with businesses and industry.” [White House, 8/5/2011]In Response To The Presidential Hiring Challenge, More Than 2,000 Businesses Have Hired Or Trained More Than 125,000 Veterans And Military Spouses And Have Pledged To Hire Or Train 250,000 In The Coming Years. “Today, First Lady Michelle Obama traveled to Naval Station Mayport, Florida to announce that more than 2,000 businesses who have participated in her Joining Forces initiative have hired or trained more than 125,000 veterans and military spouses in the past year. Mrs. Obama also announced that these same companies have committed to build on the momentum to date and have pledged to hire or train 250,000 veterans and spouses in the coming years.” [White House Press Release, 8/22/12]President Obama Campaigned For And Signed The VOW to Hire Heroes Act To Provided Tax Credits Of Up To $9,600 To Companies That Hire Unemployed And Wounded Veterans. “President Obama signed legislation Monday that provides significant tax credits to businesses that hire unemployed and disabled veterans, the only measure in the president’s larger jobs proposal to receive any bipartisan support…The new legislation will allow employers tax credits of up to $5,600 for hiring veterans who have been unemployed longer than six months. It will also give employers a tax credit of up to $9,600 for hiring long-unemployed disabled veterans.” [CNN, 11/21/11]??President Obama Has Proposed Developing A Veterans Job Corps That Will Put Up To 20,000 Veterans Back To Work Protecting And Rebuilding America Over The Next Five Years. “The President will propose $1 billion to develop a Veterans Job Corps conservation program that will put up to 20,000 veterans back to work over the next five years protecting and rebuilding America. Veterans will restore our great outdoors by providing visitor programs, restoring habitat, protecting cultural resources, eradicating invasive species, and operating facilities…The program will serve all veterans, but will have a particular focus on post-9/11 veterans.” [White House Press Release, 2/3/12]Senate Republicans Blocked Legislation That Would Have Created The Veterans Jobs Corps. “Legislation to create a?Veterans Job Corps?suffered a major defeat Wednesday afternoon after Republicans successfully blocked the bill’s advance with a budgetary point of order. The Senate voted 58 to 40 largely on party lines in favor of waiving the procedural objection, short of the three-fifths majority needed. Republicans said the bill was in violation of the Budget Control Act, prohibiting new programs that would add to the deficit. [Washington Post, 9/19/12]President Obama Announced An Overhaul Of The Veterans Transition Assistance Program, To Provide Personalized Assistance For Servicemembers Returning To School Or Entering The Civilian Workforce. “President Barack Obama announced Monday a major overhaul of the military's much-derided program to help veterans make the transition from the military to work or school. The move marks the first time in two decades that the program has been revamped…The changes to the transition program aim to transform what has been a cookie-cutter program with inconsistent results into one that lasts longer, is more personalized and better tethered to the civilian world new veterans will encounter, senior administration officials said Sunday.” [Wall Street Journal, 7/23/12]Sequestration And VeteransTHE ENTIRE DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS BUDGET IS EXEMPT FROM SEQUESTRATION The Entire Department Of Veterans Affairs Budget Is Exempt From Sequestration. “Veterans’ disability and education benefits, health care and counseling are all exempt from sequestration, according to a Friday report from the White House that spells out the harm that awaits defense and non-defense programs if a way isn’t found to avoid the across-the-board budget cuts. In a good news/bad news report to Congress, the White House said it has determined the entire Veterans Affairs Department budget is exempt from sequestration, a decision that answers nagging questions about whether VA might still be at risk for administrative cuts that would have forced layoffs, pay reductions and travel bans.” [Army Times, 9/14/12]PRESIDENT OBAMA IS COMMITTED TO IMPROVING HEALTH SERVICES PROVIDED TO OUR VETERANS President Obama Has Boosted The Veterans Affairs Budget To Ensure That Veterans Receive Timely Access To The Highest Quality Benefits And Services, Which They Earned Through Their Service To Our Nation. [Veterans Affairs FY2013 Budget Fast Facts, Accessed 7/6/12]Since January 2009, Enrollment In VA Healthcare Has Grown By Nearly 800,000. “In addition, we have mounted an aggressive outreach campaign to educate Servicemembers and Veterans about VA's capabilities and their benefits. Since January 2009, enrollment in VA healthcare is up by nearly 800,000—a 10 percent increase. That's great news—we are expanding access.” [General Eric Shinseki, 7/24/12]By Signing The Veterans Health Care Budget Reform And Transparency Act, President Obama Ensured Veterans’ Medical Care Is Now Funded A Year In Advance, Which Means The VA Can Now Expect Sufficient And Predictable Funding. “President Obama is honoring a campaign promise today by signing the Veterans Health Care Budget Reform and Transparency Act into law…Funding?for the Department of Veterans Affairs has been late in getting approved by Congress in 20 of the last 23 years, which has affected the planning of veterans’ health care programs. The legislation would?advance funding for these medical programs?by one year ahead of the fiscal year. The advance funding will ensure that the VA can depend on receiving funding for these programs on time and that they will not be affected by politicking on Capitol Hill.” [ABC News, 10/22/09]THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION IS WORKING TO ENSURE THAT VETERANS RECEIVE THE BENEFITS THEY HAVE EARNED QUICKLYThe Department Of Veterans Affairs Has Aimed To Ensure Veteran Benefit Decisions Take No More Than 125 Days By 2015. “By 2015, VA’s highest priority goals in transformation are to eliminate the disability claims backlog and ensure all Veterans receive a quality decision (98 percent accuracy rate) in no more than 125 days.” [2011 VA Performance and Accountability Report, 11/15/11]The Veterans Benefits Administration Has Begun The Transition To A Paperless Benefits Management System And Has Expanded Its Work Force By 3,500 To Accelerate And Streamline The Claims Process. “The Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA) expanded its workforce by over 3,500 people, began accepting on-line applications for initial disability benefits, initiated an innovation competition, launched over 30 pilot programs and initiatives to identify best practices, and invested over $138 million in a paperless Veterans Benefits Management System that will be deployed in Fiscal Year 2012.” [The White House, 8/2/10]Through President Obama’s Recovery Act, The Department Of Veterans Affairs Was Able To Hire Approximately 2,300 Claims Processors To Help Veterans Get Their Benefits Faster. “VA employs approximately 2,300 Compensation and Pension claims processors with ARRA funding.? These new hires assume responsibilities that allow trained employees to focus on the core elements of claims processing, thus speeding completion of claims determinations.” [Department of Veterans Affairs Recovery Act Program Specific Plan, 6/2010]CONTRASTPushback: The Sequester Would Cut Veterans Suicide PreventionRYAN VOTED FOR THE BUDGET CONTROL ACT AND PROPOSED AUTOMATIC DEFENSE CUTS IN HIS 2010 ROADMAPRyan Voted In Favor Of The Budget Control Act, Which Provided A Process To Reduce The Deficit By Up to $2.4 Trillion While Increasing The Debt Limit By The Same Amount And Created A Bipartisan, Bicameral Committee Tasked With Recommending $1.5 Trillion In Deficit Reductions. Ryan voted in favor of the Budget Control Act, which would provide a process to reduce the deficit by up to $2.4 trillion. The measure would allow the President to raise the debt limit immediately by $400 billion, with an additional $500 billion subject to a resolution of disapproval. It would set discretionary spending caps that would reduce the deficit by $917 billion in fiscal 2012 through 2021 and establish a firewall between security and non-security spending for fiscal 2012 and 2013. It would establish a bipartisan, bicameral committee tasked with making recommendations to reduce the deficit by $1.5 trillion. It would require across-the-board cuts to non-exempt discretionary and mandatory accounts by up to $1.2 trillion over fiscal 2013 through 2021 if committee reductions totaling $1.2 trillion were not enacted. The measure would require Congress to vote on a balanced-budget constitutional amendment by the end of 2011. It also would provide for an additional debt limit increase of $1.2 trillion to $1.5 trillion, subject to a resolution of disapproval. The bill passed 269-161. [S. 365, Vote #690, CQ Floor Votes 8/1/11]Ryan Called The Budget Control Act “A Victory.” “Ryan voted for the Budget Control Act when it passed, calling it ‘a victory for those committed to controlling government spending and growing our economy.’” [CBS News, 8/23/12]Washington Post Headline: “Ryan Proposed Automatic Defense Cuts In Earlier Budget Plan” [Washington Post, 9/17/12]Washington Post: “Ryan Himself Proposed To Cap Government Spending And Enforce Those Caps With Automatic Spending Cuts That Would Have Hit The Pentagon.” [Washington Post, 9/17/12]Ryan’s 2010 Roadmap Included A Provision For Automatic Defense Spending Cuts. “As introduced in 2010, Ryan’s ‘Roadmap for America’s Future’ would have created ‘a mechanism to automatically slow the growth in faster-spending entitlement programs’ by requiring the White House budget office ‘to make across-the-board spending reductions in both mandatory and discretionary program’ if overall federal spending breached specified limits. The Defense Department would have been a target for cuts, House Budget Committee aides confirmed Monday, though the impact would have been limited to 1 percent of any agency’s budget.” [Washington Post, 9/17/12]PRESIDENT OBAMA MADE CLEAR THAT CONGRESS CAN AND MUST ACT TO AVOID THE SWEEPING IMPACTS OF THE SEQUESTERPresident Obama “Made Clear That Congress Can And Must Act To Avoid The Sweeping Impacts Of The Sequester” And Provided Multiple Blueprints For Balanced Deficit Reduction To Avoid The Sequester. “The President has made clear that the Congress can and must act to avoid the sweeping impacts of the sequester by passing a balanced deficit reduction package. Last fall, the Administration provided a blueprint for the Congress to do so. And in his 2013 Budget, the President proposed a comprehensive balanced deficit reduction package that would ensure the Nation lives within its means and, including legislation signed into law last year, reduces the deficit by $4 trillion while supporting job creation and long-term economic growth. This package would achieve more than enough deficit reduction to avoid the sequester.” [Statement Of Administration Policy On H.R. 5652, Sequester Replacement Reconciliation Act Of 2012, 5/9/12]ALL VETERANS AFFAIRS FUNDING – INCLUDING SUICIDE PREVENTION, DISABILITY AND EDUCATION BENEFITS, HEALTH CARE, AND COUNSELING – IS EXEMPT FROM SEQUESTRATION…Army Times: “The Entire Veterans Affairs Department Budget Is Exempt From Sequestration” Including “Veterans’ Disability And Education Benefits, Health Care And Counseling.” “Veterans’ disability and education benefits, health care and counseling are all exempt from sequestration, according to a report from the White House that spells out the harm that awaits defense and non-defense programs if a way isn’t found to avoid the across-the-board budget cuts. In a good news/bad news report to Congress, the White House said it has determined the entire Veterans Affairs Department budget is exempt from sequestration, a decision that answers nagging questions about whether VA might still be at risk for administrative cuts that would have forced layoffs, pay reductions and travel bans.” [Army Times, 9/14/12]Veteran Suicide Prevention “Lies Primarily With The Veterans Health Administration (VHA), Within The Department Of Veterans Affairs.” “Responsibility for prevention of veteran suicide lies primarily with the Veterans Health Administration (VHA), within the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). The VHA Strategic Plan for Suicide Prevention is based on a public health framework, which has three major components: (1) surveillance, (2) risk and protective factors, and (3) prevention interventions. No nationwide surveillance system exists for suicide among all veterans; therefore, the actual incidence of suicide among veterans is not known. Surveillance, or systematic collection of data on completed (i.e., fatal) suicides, is essential to define the scope of the problem (i.e., the suicide rate among veterans), identify characteristics associated with higher or lower risk of suicide, and track changes in the suicide rate over time to evaluate suicide prevention interventions.” [Suicide Prevention Efforts of the Veterans Health Administration, 2/3/12]…BUT THE RYAN BUDGET COULD ACTUALLY CUT VETERANS AFFAIRS BY 19% – A CUT OF $11 BILLIONThe Ryan Budget Makes Steep Cuts To Veterans While Failing To Balance The Budget Before 2040. “Ryan’s controversial plan makes steep cuts even to popular spending categories, such as veterans benefits and transportation. Opponents have said it would disproportionately harm the elderly, the poor and the middle class and would turn Medicare into a voucher system. Even with the tough medicine, the Ryan plan doesn’t balance the budget until 2040.” [Mankato Free Press, 8/11/12]The Ryan Budget Would Cut Domestic Discretionary Spending By 19 Percent, And “Since The House Has Refused To Specify What Would Be Cut, We Consider The Impacts If The Cuts Are Distributed Equally Across The Budget.” “Yesterday, House Republicans released their budget resolution for FY 2013… On top of the roughly $1 trillion in cuts in the Budget Control Act, it would be difficult to overstate the radicalism of the domestic cuts proposed by the House budget resolution.? In 2013, it would cut annual non-defense funding by 5 percent.? By 2014, the resolution would cut this funding by 19 percent in purely nominal terms. Over a decade, the resolution would cut over $1 trillion in non-defense spending on top of the reductions the President has already signed into law.? The cuts in non-defense discretionary funding are nearly three times as deep as the cuts under the so-called sequester — cuts that we and most objective analysts have always regarded as an unwise and unacceptable. What would it all mean? The Budget doesn’t say.? In fact, the Budget resolution includes a magic asterisk — or, in more technical parlance, an ‘allowance’— for $897 billion in unspecified cuts. But what could the resolution mean?? Since the House has refused to specify what would be cut, we consider the impacts if the cuts are distributed equally across the Budget. The result would be that.” [Jeff Zients, Acting Director of the Office of Management and Budget, , 3/21/12]2012: The Enacted Veteran’s Affairs Budget Was $58.5 Billion. [Fiscal year 2013 Budget, Office of Management & Budget, p. 240]ATTACKRomney’s Plans Could Hurt America’s VeteransROMNEY SUGGESTED PRIVATIZING VETERANS HEALTH CARERomney’s Suggestion Of Using A Voucher System For Veterans’ Health Care “Echoed” Portions Of His Medicare Plan. “He also briefly floated the idea of using a voucher system to help veterans get reliable and quality health care, an option that echoed portions of a Medicare plan he recently rolled out at the Americans for Prosperity Foundation’s annual summit.” [New York Times, 11/11/11]Krugman: Romney’s “Voucherization” Of The VA Would Leave Veterans Who Don’t Make Enough Money To Cover Health Care Costs On Top Of What The Voucher Covers Unable “To Receive Essential Care.” “Mitt Romney wants to privatize the VA. This is awesome on multiple levels. First, you know what voucherization would mean in practice: the vouchers would be inadequate, and become more so over time, so that veterans who don’t make enough money to top them up would fail to receive essential care. Patriotism!” [Krugman, New York Times, 11/12/11]Veterans Of Foreign Wars “Doesn’t Support Privatization Of Veterans Health Care.” “In South Carolina today, Mitt Romney suggesting opening up public veterans benefits to private competition by instituting a voucher system for soldiers to find their own coverage. Asked about the idea, Veterans Of Foreign Wars spokesman Jerry Newberry quickly shot it down as a non-starter for his group. ‘The VFW doesn’t support privatization of veterans health care,’ he told TPM. ‘This is an issue that seems to come around every election cycle.’” [Talking Points Memo, 11/11/11]THE ROMNEY-RYAN BUDGET COULD CUT THE VA BY 19%?– A CUT OF $11 BILLIONThe Ryan Budget Makes Steep Cuts To Veterans While Failing To Balance The Budget Before 2040. “Ryan’s controversial plan makes steep cuts even to popular spending categories, such as veterans benefits and transportation. Opponents have said it would disproportionately harm the elderly, the poor and the middle class and would turn Medicare into a voucher system. Even with the tough medicine, the Ryan plan doesn’t balance the budget until 2040.” [Mankato Free Press, 8/11/12]The Ryan Budget Would Cut Domestic Discretionary Spending By 19 Percent, And “Since The House Has Refused To Specify What Would Be Cut, We Consider The Impacts If The Cuts Are Distributed Equally Across The Budget.” “Yesterday, House Republicans released their budget resolution for FY 2013… On top of the roughly $1 trillion in cuts in the Budget Control Act, it would be difficult to overstate the radicalism of the domestic cuts proposed by the House budget resolution.? In 2013, it would cut annual non-defense funding by 5 percent.? By 2014, the resolution would cut this funding by 19 percent in purely nominal terms. Over a decade, the resolution would cut over $1 trillion in non-defense spending on top of the reductions the President has already signed into law.? The cuts in non-defense discretionary funding are nearly three times as deep as the cuts under the so-called sequester — cuts that we and most objective analysts have always regarded as an unwise and unacceptable. What would it all mean? The Budget doesn’t say.? In fact, the Budget resolution includes a magic asterisk — or, in more technical parlance, an ‘allowance’— for $897 billion in unspecified cuts. But what could the resolution mean?? Since the House has refused to specify what would be cut, we consider the impacts if the cuts are distributed equally across the Budget. The result would be that.” [Jeff Zients, Acting Director of the Office of Management and Budget, , 3/21/12]2012: The Enacted Veteran’s Affairs Budget Was $58.5 Billion. [Fiscal year 2013 Budget, Office of Management & Budget, p. 240]WOMENPRO-POTUSPresident Obama Is Fighting For The Health And Economic Security Of Women And Their FamiliesPRESIDENT OBAMA HAS FOUGHT TO HELP ENSURE THAT WOMEN TO RECEIVE EQUAL PAY FOR EQUAL WORK AND IS FIGHTING TO HELP PREVENT UNFAIR PAY BEFORE IT STARTSThe First Bill President Obama Signed Was The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Restoration Act, Which Makes It Easier For Women To Fight Back When They Don’t Receive Equal Pay for Equal Work.? “U.S. President Barack Obama signed his first bill Thursday, the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Restoration Act, making it easier to sue companies for pay inequity… The measure facilitates judiciary procedures for an employee discriminated against on the basis of age, sex, race, religion or country of origin.” [UPI, 1/29/09] President Obama Created The National Equal Pay Enforcement Task Force To Enhance Enforcement Of Equal Pay Laws And Address Challenges That Prevent Women From Receiving Equal Pay For Equal Work. “The Equal Pay Task Force brings together the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the Department of Justice, the Department of Labor and the Office of Personnel Management to address specific challenges preventing women from receiving equal pay for equal work.? These recommendations… will result in improved enforcement of equal pay laws and a workforce better educated on its right to equal pay and employers better educated on how to provide it.” [National Economic Council, October 2010]The Obama Administration Issued A Statement Of Administration Policy Expressing Strong Support For The Paycheck Fairness Act To Give Women Additional Tools To Fight Pay Discrimination. “The Administration strongly supports Senate passage of S. 3220, the Paycheck Fairness Act.? Women continue to earn substantially less than men for performing the same work. … ??The Paycheck Fairness Act is commonsense legislation that strengthens the Equal Pay Act and would give women the tools they need to fight pay discrimination.” [Statement of Administration Policy, 6/4/12]UNDER PRESIDENT OBAMA’S LEADERSHIP, UNEMPLOYMENT AMONG WOMEN HAS DECLINED, AND WOMEN ARE GAINING BACK PRIVATE SECTOR JOBSThe Unemployment Rate Among Women Has Declined 1.1 Percentage Points In The Last Year. Between September 2011 and September 2012, the unemployment rate among women declined from 8.6 percent to 7.5 percent. [Bureau of Labor Statistics, accessed 10/5/12]Over The Last 31 Months, Women Have Gained More Than 1.5 Million Private Sector Jobs. In February 2010, the private sector employed 51,759,000 women. In September 2012, the private sector employed 53,313,000 women, for a gain of 1,554,000 jobs over the 31 month period. [Bureau of Labor Statistics, accessed 10/5/12]President Obama Took Office Amidst Historic Job Losses for Women. The number of private-sector jobs filled by women fell 288,000 in January 2009 – making it the worst month on record since BLS began collecting that data in 1964. [Bureau Of Labor Statistics, accessed 4/10/12]HEALTH CARE REFORM WILL PREVENT INSURERS FROM CHARGING WOMEN HIGHER PREMIUMS THAN MEN AND PROVIDES ACCESS TO VITAL PREVENTIVE SERVICESIn 2014, Health Care Reform Will Prevent Insurers From Charging Women Higher Premiums Than They Charge Men. “Before the law, women could be charged more for individual insurance policies simply because of their gender. A 22-year-old woman could be charged 150% the premium that a 22-year-old man paid. In 2014, insurers will not be able to charge women higher premiums than they charge men.” [, accessed 7/28/11] Thanks To The Affordable Care Act, An Estimated 47 Million Women Will Receive Access To Contraception And Seven Other Preventive Services Without A Co-Pay Or Deductible. According to a Department of Health and Human Services report: “Based on the most recent data from the Census Bureau, we estimate that under the Affordable Care Act, approximately 47 million women will have guaranteed access to these additional preventive services without cost-sharing for policies renewing on or after August 1, 2012. These services include well-woman visits, screening for gestational diabetes, HPV DNA testing, domestic violence screening and counseling, HIV screening and counseling for sexually transmitted infections, breastfeeding supplies, contraceptive methods and family planning counseling.” [Department of Health and Human Services, 7/31/12]PRESIDENT OBAMA’S TAX CREDITS FOR WORKING FAMILIES HAVE KEPT MILLIONS OF WOMEN OUT OF POVERTYThe Earned Income Tax Credit And The Child Tax Credit Kept 4.9 Million Women And Girls Above The Poverty Line In 2010. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities’ senior researcher Arloc Sherman: “The numbers rise when you include a second federal income tax credit — the less well-known CTC, which provides up to $1,000 per child for working families:? together, the CTC and EITC kept 4.9 million women and girls above the poverty line in 2010, including more than 800,000 just by the Recovery Act’s expansions of both credits.” [Center on Budget Policy and Priorities’ “Off the Charts” blog, 3/30/12]PRESIDENT OBAMA HAS INCREASED FUNDING FOR HEAD START AND EARLY HEAD START, WHICH SERVE 64,000 ADDITIONAL CHILDREN AS A RESULTThrough The Recovery Act, President Obama Invested In Head Start And Early Head Start, Expanding The Programs To Reach An Additional 64,000 Children And Families. “Through the Recovery Act, the President made a historic investment in Head Start and Early Head Start, giving 64,000 additional children access to child care. The program now serves 968,000 children, the highest service level in the history of the program, and funding was secured by the President in subsequent budget requests to maintain this level of service.” [White House Council on Women and Girls, April 2012]Job LossesGOVERNOR ROMNEY’S CLAIMS ABOUT WOMEN’S UNEMPLOYMENTHAVE BEEN LABELED MISLEADING, AND ROMNEY WOULD GUT CRITICAL HEALTH PROGRAMS FOR WOMENTHE CLAIM THAT NEARLY ALL JOB LOSSES DURING PRESIDENT OBAMA’S ADMINISTRATION WERE SUFFERED BY WOMEN HAS BEEN CALLED “SKEWED” AND “MISLEADING”Associated Press: “As A Meaningful Measure Of Obama's Economic Record And Its Effect On Women” Romney’s Claim That 92.3 Percent Of All Jobs Lost During The Obama Years Have Been Lost By Women Is “Is Dubious At Best.” “Mitt Romney has come up with an "amazing statistic" and Republicans inside and outside his presidential campaign are doing their utmost to spread it around: ‘92.3 percent of all the jobs lost during the Obama years have been lost by women.’ Amazing it may be. As a meaningful measure of Obama's economic record and its effect on women, though, it is dubious at best. ?[Associated Press, 4/12/2012]Associated Press Headline: Romney’s Case On Women’s Employment Is “Skewed.”[Associated Press, 4/12/2012]Tampa Bay Times Politifact:? The Romney Campaign’s Claim About Employment Among Women Under President Obama “Ignores Critical Facts That Would Give A Different Impression. We Rate It Mostly False.” [Tampa Bay Times, PolitiFact, 4/11/2012]New York Times:?Romney’s Claim About The Recession’s Impact On Women's Employment “Doesn’t Tell Full Story.”?In an article headlined, "A Claim About Jobs Doesn't Tell Full Story," the New York Times found that,?“In campaign events on Tuesday and Wednesday, Mitt Romney made the claim that 92.3 percent of the net total of jobs lost since President Obama took office belonged to women. The assertion is technically accurate but misses several important pieces of context…Women, in other words, were the second shoe to drop, and they were not even the heavier shoe.?[New York Times,?4/11/2012]In Considering The Romney Campaign’s Complaints About Their Ruling, Tampa Bay Times PolitiFact Found That “Other Economists Agreed The Statement Was Misleading And, For The Most Part, Said It Wrongly Blamed Obama For Broad Trends That Were Part Of A Long, Deep Recession.” “We considered the Romney campaign's complaints but do not see any evidence that warrants changing our ruling. The other economists agreed the statement was misleading and, for the most part, said it wrongly blamed Obama for broad trends that were part of a long, deep recession.” [Tampa Bay Times, PolitiFact, 4/11/2012]FACT CHECKERS AND ANALYSTS HAVE SAID THE PRACTICE OF BLAMING ELECTED OFFICIALS FOR SITUATIONS THAT EXISTED AT THE BEGINNING OF THEIR ADMINISTRATIONS IS MISLEADINGWashington Post’sEzra Klein: Romney Chose A Time Frame That “Thrusts The Very Worst Of The Recession Into Obama’s Lap Despite The Fact That He Wasn’t Even President Yet.” “The National Bureau of Economic Research?says?the recession officially began in December 2007. The worst of it came in the fourth quarter of 2008. Obama was inaugurated on Jan. 20, 2009. The time frame Romney chose, in other words, thrusts the very worst of the recession into Obama’s lap despite the fact that he wasn’t even president yet.” [Ezra Klein, Washington Post, 4/25/2012]Washington Post’s Ezra Klein: “It’s Like Blaming A Fireman For The Damage The Blaze Did Before He Arrived.” [Ezra Klein, Washington Post, 4/25/2012]Tampa Bay Times PolitiFact: “We Have Taken Points Off Previous Claims For Blaming Officeholders For Situations That Existed At The Beginning Of Their Administrations, Before Their Policies Have Had Time To Take Effect.”? “The first problem we find with Saul’s tweet is that it begins counting job losses the first month Obama was in office. We have taken points off previous claims for blaming officeholders for situations that existed at the beginning of their administrations, before their policies have had time to take effect. One could reasonably argue that January 2009 employment figures are more a result of President George W. Bush’s policies, at least as far as any president can be blamed or credited for private-sector hiring.” [Tampa Bay Times, PolitiFact, 4/10/12]New York Times’ Paul Krugman: “The Romney Campaign Is Banking On Amnesia, On The Hope That Voters Don’t Remember That Mr. Obama Inherited An Economy That Was Already In Free Fall.” [Paul Krugman, New York Times, 4/22/12]ROMNEY HAS SAID AMERICANS SHOULD GIVE PRESIDENTS SIX MONTHS OR A YEAR TO GET THEIR POLICIES IN PLACEAsked How Congress Should Be Handling The Fiscal Cliff, Romney Said That “We Ought To Give, Whichever President Is Going To Be Elected, At Least Six Months Or A Year To Get Those Policies In Place.” “KUDLOW: How should we be handling--how should Congress be handling the so-called fiscal cliff? Everybody says we're going to fall over the fiscal cliff of a huge tax hike and large spending reductions and that's going to lead to a recession. First of all, if the Bush tax cuts are not extended, do you believe, sir, we will have a recession? ROMNEY: [….]Look, the American people ought to choose the course for the future. And if they want to raise taxes on business creators and cause a further slowdown, well, they can vote for President Obama. But if they want to see this economy come roaring back with good--with good jobs, they ought to vote for me, in my view. And we ought to give, whichever president is going to be elected, at least six months or a year to get those policies in place.” [Larry Kudlow Interview With Governor Mitt Romney, CNBC Transcript, 7/23/12]UNDER PRESIDENT OBAMA’S LEADERSHIP, UNEMPLOYMENT AMONG WOMEN HAS DECLINED, AND WOMEN ARE GAINING BACK PRIVATE SECTOR JOBSOver The Last 31 Months, Women Have Gained More Than 1.5 Million Private Sector Jobs. In February 2010, the private sector employed 51,759,000 women. In September 2012, the private sector employed 53,313,000 women, for a gain of 1,554,000 jobs over the 31 month period. [Bureau of Labor Statistics, accessed 10/5/12]The Unemployment Rate Among Women Has Declined 1.1 Percentage Points In The Last Year. Between September 2011 and September 2012, the unemployment rate among women declined from 8.6 percent to 7.5 percent. [Bureau of Labor Statistics, accessed 10/5/12]President Obama Took Office Amidst Historic Job Losses for Women. The number of private-sector jobs filled by women fell 288,000 in January 2009 – making it the worst month on record since BLS began collecting that data in 1964. [Bureau Of Labor Statistics, accessed 4/10/12]Religious FreedomNO CHURCH OR RELIGIOUS EMPLOYER WILL HAVE TO PAY FOR CONTRACEPTION COVERAGE THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION’S DECISION DOES NOT REQUIRE RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS TO PAY FOR, PRESCRIBE, OR PROVIDE CONTRACEPTIVESThe Obama Administration’s Health Care Guidelines On Contraception Exempts Churches And Houses Of Worship From Covering Contraception, And Will Require Insurers To Cover Contraception If A Religiously-Affiliated Organization Objects To Providing Coverage. “Today, the Obama Administration will publish final rules in the Federal Register that: Exempts churches, other houses of worship, and similar organizations from covering contraception on the basis of their religious objections. Establishes a one-year transition period for religious organizations while this policy is being implemented. The President will also announce that his Administration will propose and finalize a new regulation during this transition year to address the religious objections of the non-exempted non-profit religious organizations. The new regulation will require insurance companies to cover contraception if the religious organization chooses not to. Under the policy: Religious organizations will not have to provide contraceptive coverage or refer their employees to organizations that provide contraception. Religious organizations will not be required to subsidize the cost of contraception. Contraception coverage will be offered to women by their employers’ insurance companies directly, with no role for religious employers who oppose contraception.” [White House Fact Sheet, 2/10/12]AN ESTIMATED 47 MILLION WOMEN WILL GAIN ACCESS TO AFFORDABLE PREVENTIVE SERVICES, INCLUDING CONTRACEPTION WITHOUT OUT OF POCKET COSTS, THANKS TO THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACTThe Department Of Health And Human Services Estimates That Thanks To The Affordable Care Act, 47 Million Women Will Receive Access To Contraception And Seven Other Preventive Services Without A Co-Pay Or Deductible. According to a Department of Health and Human Services report: “Based on the most recent data from the Census Bureau, we estimate that under the Affordable Care Act, approximately 47 million women will have guaranteed access to these additional preventive services without cost-sharing for policies renewing on or after August 1, 2012.[4] These services include well-woman visits, screening for gestational diabetes, HPV DNA testing, domestic violence screening and counseling, HIV screening and counseling for sexually transmitted infections, breastfeeding supplies, contraceptive methods and family planning counseling.” [Department of Health and Human Services, 7/31/12]According To A 2010 Survey, 55 Percent Of Women Ages 18 To 34 Have Struggled With The Cost Of Prescription Birth Control. “The survey, conducted by Hart Research Associates and commissioned by Planned Parenthood Action Fund, found overwhelming and widespread public support for national policies that would provide prescription birth control approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) at no cost to all women with health insurance. … 55 percent of women 18–34 have struggled with the cost of prescription birth control.” [Planned Parenthood, 10/12/10]28 STATES ALREADY HAVE SIMILAR REQUIREMENTS FOR CONTRACEPTION COVERAGE 28 States Already Require That Insurers That Cover Prescription Drugs Also Cover The Full Range Of FDA-Approved Contraceptives. “28 states require insurers that cover prescription drugs to provide coverage of the full range of FDA approved contraceptive drugs and devices; 17 of these states also require coverage of related outpatient services. 2 states exclude emergency contraception from the required coverage. 1 state excludes minor dependents from coverage.” [Guttmacher Institute, 2/2/12]THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION’S RULE IS SUPPORTED BY BOTH RELIGIOUS AND WOMEN’S GROUPSThe Executive Director Of Catholics United Called The Obama Administration’s Decision A “Win-Win Solution.” “‘Catholics United has been calling on both sides of this heated debate to work towards today's win-win solution,’ said James Salt, executive director of Catholics United.” [Catholics United, 2/10/12]Catholics United Executive Director: “President Obama Has Shown Us That He Is Willing To Rise Above The Partisan Fray To Deliver An Actual Policy Solution That Both Meets The Health Care Needs Of All Employees And Respects The Religious Liberty Of Catholic Institutions.” [Catholics United, 2/10/12]NARAL Pro-Choice America’s President Called The Obama Administration’s Decision “A Reaffirmation Of The Commitment To Ensuring Contraceptive Coverage.” “Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, called the Obama administration’s announcement a reaffirmation of the commitment to ensuring contraceptive coverage. The Obama administration’s policy will make sure women of all faiths who work at religiously affiliated hospitals, universities, and service organizations can get contraceptive coverage. It guarantees that women will encounter no barriers from their bosses or insurance plans in getting birth control without a copay.” [NARAL, 2/10/12]CONTRASTPresident Obama Has Fought For Women’s Rights, But Romney Would Take Us BackPRESIDENT OBAMA HAS FOUGHT TO HELP ENSURE THAT WOMEN TO RECEIVE EQUAL PAY FOR EQUAL WORKThe First Bill President Obama Signed Was The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Restoration Act, Which Makes It Easier For Women To Fight Back When They Don’t Receive Equal Pay for Equal Work.? “U.S. President Barack Obama signed his first bill Thursday, the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Restoration Act, making it easier to sue companies for pay inequity… The measure facilitates judiciary procedures for an employee discriminated against on the basis of age, sex, race, religion or country of origin.” [UPI, 1/29/09] HEALTH CARE REFORM WILL PREVENT INSURERS FROM CHARGING WOMEN HIGHER PREMIUMS THAN MEN AND PROVIDES ACCESS TO VITAL PREVENTIVE SERVICESIn 2014, Health Care Reform Will Prevent Insurers From Charging Women Higher Premiums Than They Charge Men. “Before the law, women could be charged more for individual insurance policies simply because of their gender. A 22-year-old woman could be charged 150% the premium that a 22-year-old man paid. In 2014, insurers will not be able to charge women higher premiums than they charge men.” [, accessed 7/28/11] Thanks To The Affordable Care Act, An Estimated 47 Million Women Will Receive Access To Contraception And Seven Other Preventive Services Without A Co-Pay Or Deductible. According to a Department of Health and Human Services report: “Based on the most recent data from the Census Bureau, we estimate that under the Affordable Care Act, approximately 47 million women will have guaranteed access to these additional preventive services without cost-sharing for policies renewing on or after August 1, 2012. These services include well-woman visits, screening for gestational diabetes, HPV DNA testing, domestic violence screening and counseling, HIV screening and counseling for sexually transmitted infections, breastfeeding supplies, contraceptive methods and family planning counseling.” [Department of Health and Human Services, 7/31/12]ROMNEY WOULD REPEAL SAFEGUARDS AND CUT FUNDING FOR WOMEN’S HEALTH AND REFUSED TO SUPPORT EQUAL PAY FOR EQUAL WORKRomney: “If I’m President, I Will Repeal Obamacare, And I’ll Kill It Dead On Its First Day.” [Romney town hall, Collinsville, IL, 3/17/12]Romney Said Of Federal Cuts He Would Make: “Planned Parenthood, We're Going To Get Rid Of That.” Romney: “My test is pretty simple. Is the program so critical, it's worth borrowing money from China to pay for it? And on that basis of course you get rid of Obamacare, that's the easy one. But there are others. Planned Parenthood, we're going to get rid of that.” [KSDK (St. Louis, MO), 3/13/12]Romney Endorsed The Blunt Amendment Which Would Allow Employers To “Have Free Rein To Pick And Choose Your Medical Care As He Or She Saw Fit--So If The Boss Believed That Birth Control Were An Affront To God And Nature, Well, Too Bad For You.”“And yet, just weeks after Obama announced the compromise, Senator Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) proposed legislation that would allow any employer or insurance company to decline to cover?any?medical care for any moral or religious reason. Under the law, your boss would have free rein to pick and choose your medical care as he or she saw fit--so if the boss believed that birth control were an affront to God and nature, well, too bad for you; you'd have to shell out the full monthly cost for your pill pack.?The Blunt Amendment (which Romney endorsed)?was blocked in the Senate with an extremely narrow margin--51 to 48--with Maine's Olympia Snowe (who announced around the same time that she would not be seeking reelection) the only Republican voting against it.” [Gretchen Voss, Women’s Health, September 2012]Headline: “Romney Won't Say Whether He Would Have Signed Lilly Ledbetter Act” [Huffington Post, 4/16/12]Headline: “Mitt Romney Mum On Paycheck Fairness Bill.” [Huffington Post, 6/4/12]President Obama And Vice President Biden Are Committed To Strengthening The Violence Against Women Act While Ryan Voted Against ItPRESIDENT OBAMA AND VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN ARE COMMITTED TO REDUCING DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AND STRENGTHENING TO REDUCEma And Vice President Biden Are Committed To Strengthening The Violence Against Women ActINESSES, INVESTING IN RURA THE VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN ACTVICE PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN IS A LONGTIME ADVOCATE OF PREVENTING VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN AND AUTHORED THE VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN ACTAs A Senator, Vice President Biden Wrote The Violence Against Women Act, A Bill He Calls His “Proudest Legislative Achievement.” “As a senator, Biden wrote the Violence Against Women Act of 1994, which imposed tougher penalties on abusers and expanded victims' rights to sue. He called it his "proudest legislative achievement.’" [USA Today, 9/13/09]Sen. Biden Introduced The First Federal Legislation Dealing With Violence Against Women In 1990. “For nearly a half million women, the holiday season is a time not of joy but of violence and tragedy, says Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr., who has proposed the first Federal legislation dealing with domestic violence. … Almost all legislation dealing with violence between intimate adult partners remains at the state and local level. The Violence Against Women Act, which Mr. Biden proposes to reintroduce in the next Congress, would subject abusers to stringent penalties and would triple Federal financing for battered women's shelters.” [New York Times. 12/16/90]Vice President Biden Criticized House Republicans For Passing A Weaker Version Of The Violence Against Women Act Reauthorization That Would Roll Back Current Protections For Victims Of Domestic Violence. “Earlier this year, the Senate passed the bill, and they did it with both Democratic and Republican support. Unfortunately, the House did not follow this broadly bipartisan path; Republicans there passed a much weaker version of the bill. While the House bill contains some of the important provisions of the Senate bill, it lacks key improvements — like protecting more victims and requiring dating violence and sexual assault prevention programs on campus — and, in some cases, it actually rolls back current protections for victims of domestic violence. [Op-Ed by Vice President Biden, 8/1/12]THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION STRONGLY SUPPORTS THE REAUTHORIZATION AND STRENGTHENING OF THE VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN ACTThe Obama Administration Issued A Statement Of Administration Policy Expressing Its Strong Support Of The Reauthorization Of The Violence Against Women Act. “The Administration strongly supports Senate passage of S. 1925 to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act, a landmark piece of bipartisan legislation that first passed the Congress in 1994 and has twice been reauthorized.? That Act transformed the Nation's response to violence against women and brought critically needed resources to States and local communities to address these crimes.” [Statement Of Administration Policy, S. 1925 – Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2011, 4/23/12]The Obama Administration Strongly Opposes The House Version Of The Violence Against Women Act That Fails To Include Language That Would Prohibit Discrimination Against LGBT Victims And Additional Protections For Native American And Immigrant Victims. From a Statement of Administration Policy on H.R. 4970, The Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2012: “The Administration strongly opposes H.R. 4970, a bill that would undermine the core principles of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA). … H.R. 4970 retreats from this forward progress by failing to include several critical provisions that are part of the Senate-passed VAWA reauthorization bill.? For instance, H.R. 4970 fails to provide for concurrent special domestic violence criminal jurisdiction by tribal authorities over non-Indians, and omits clarification of tribal courts' full civil jurisdiction regarding certain protection orders over non-Indians.? Given that three out of five Native American women experience domestic violence in their lifetime, these omissions in H.R. 4970 are unacceptable.? The bill also fails to include language that would prohibit discrimination against LGBT victims in VAWA grant programs. … H.R. 4970 also takes direct aim at immigrant victims of domestic violence and sexual assault by removing critical protections currently in law” [Statement Of Administration Policy, H.R. 4970 – Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2012, 5/15/12]PRESIDENT OBAMA HAS MADE THE PREVENTION OF VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN A PRIORITY OF HIS ADMINISTRATIONPresident Obama Appointed The First-Ever White House Advisor On Violence Against Women. “At home and abroad, we are working to promote policies that seek to eradicate violence against women. That dedication starts with the first ever White House adviser on Violence Against Women to ensure a federal government-wide focus and coordination on this important issue affecting families across the country.” [The White House, accessed 11/12/11]The Recovery Act Allocated $225 Million To The Department Of Justice To Promote Law Enforcement Strategies To Address Domestic Violence, Dating Violence, Sexual Assault, And Stalking. “The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (H.R.1) includes $4 billion in Department of Justice grant funding to enhance state, local, and tribal law enforcement efforts, including the hiring of new police officers, to combat violence against women, and to fight internet crimes against children.? $225 million will be used by the Office on Violence Against Women to develop and support the capacity of state, local, tribal, and non-profit entities involved in responding to violence against women. The Act directs $175 million to support the work of states, tribal governments, state domestic violence and sexual assault coalitions, and tribal domestic violence and sexual assault coalitions. The majority of these funds will be awarded to states, allocated based on population, under the Services*Training*Officers*Prosecutors (STOP) Formula Grant Program to promote a coordinated, multidisciplinary approach to enhance services and advocacy to victims, improve the criminal justice system's response, and promote effective law enforcement and prosecution strategies to address domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking.” [Department of Justice, 06/2011]Under The Affordable Care Act, Insurance Plans Will Be Required To Provide Domestic Violence Screening And Counseling Without A Co-Pay Or Deductible. “Covered Preventive Services for Women, Including Pregnant Women Note: Services marked with an asterisk ( * ) must be covered with no cost-sharing in plan years starting on or after August 1, 2012. … Domestic and interpersonal violence screening and counseling for all women*” [, updated 1/20/11]ROMNEY DID NOT SAY WHETHER HE WOULD SIGN THE REAUTHORIZATION AND EXPANSION OF THE VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN ACTRomney’s Campaign “Would Not Say Whether [Romney] Would Sign The Senate [Renewal Of The Violence Against Women Act] Into Law If He Were President.” “Senate Republicans are divided on legislation to renew the Violence Against Women Act, which was first passed in 1994 and included criminal penalties and grants to fight domestic violence and sexual assault. All eight Republicans on the Judiciary Committee voted no in committee in February, while eight other GOP senators are co-sponsoring it. … Andrea Saul, a spokeswoman for Mr. Romney, said he hoped the law could be renewed ‘without turning it into a political football.’ She would not say whether he would sign the Senate bill into law if he were president.” [Wall Street Journal, 4/18/12]2012: RYAN VOTED AGAINST CONSIDERATION OF REAUTHORIZING THE VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN ACT2012: Ryan Voted Against Considering The Reauthorization Of The Violence Against Women Act.?Paul Ryan, on March 28, 2012, voted against considering the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act sponsored by Rep. Gwen Moore (D-WI). “House Democrats used a procedural maneuver to try to bring” the “measure to the house floor. They were beaten back by the GOP led house[.]” [H Res 597,?Vote #139, 3/28/12; CNN, 3/28/12]REPUBLICANS BLOCKED EFFORTS TO MOVE VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN ACT FORWARDRoll Call: “Republicans Blocked?A Conference When Sen. Reid Tried To Set One Up In May, Causing VAWA To Languish For Months.” “‘Republicans blocked?a conference when Sen. Reid tried to set one up in May, causing VAWA to languish for months. Appointing conferees at this point is simply another transparent delaying tactic by Republicans,’ Reid spokesman Adam Jentleson said.? ‘The main difference between the House and Senate versions is that the Senate version is overwhelmingly bipartisan. If Republicans truly want to resolve this issue, they will pass the Senate's bipartisan compromise right away.’” [Roll Call, 7/31/12]New York Times Editorial: “Unless Something Changes, Republicans Will Bear Responsibility For Blocking Renewal Of A Popular, Lifesaving Initiative.” “With Congress just days away from its August break, House Republicans have to decide which is more important: protecting victims of domestic violence or advancing the harsh antigay and anti-immigrant sentiments of some on their party's far right. At the moment, harshness is winning. At issue is reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act, the landmark 1994 law central to the nation's efforts against domestic violence, sexual assault and stalking. … Negotiations on a final bill are in limbo. Complicating matters, there is a procedural glitch. The Senate bill imposes a fee to pay for special visas that go to immigrant victims of domestic abuse. This runs afoul of the rule that revenue-raising measures must begin in the House. Mr. Boehner's leadership could break the logjam -- but that, of course, would also require his Republican colleagues to drop their narrow-minded opposition to stronger protections for all victims of abuse. Unless something changes, Republicans will bear responsibility for blocking renewal of a popular, lifesaving initiative. This seems an odd way to cultivate moderate voters, especially women, going into the fall campaign.” [Editorial, New York Times, 7/24/12]RYAN SUPPORTED A GOP-VERSION OF THE BILL THAT DID NOT ADEQUATELY PROTECT IMMIGRANTS, INDIAN AND LGBT AMERICANSRyan Supported Republican Version Of Renewal For Violence Against Women Act. In 2012, Ryan Voted In Favor Of The Republican Version Of A Bill Renewing The Violence Against Women Act. Democrats Opposed The Bill Because It Did Not Provide Protections For LGBT Individuals Or Undocumented Immigrants Who Are Victims Of Domestic Abuse. The Bill Passed 222-205. [HR 4970, Vote #258, 5/16/12]The Obama Administration Strongly Opposes The House Version Of The Violence Against Women Act That Fails To Include Language That Would Prohibit Discrimination Against LGBT Victims And Additional Protections For Native American And Immigrant Victims. From a Statement of Administration Policy on H.R. 4970, The Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2012: “The Administration strongly opposes H.R. 4970, a bill that would undermine the core principles of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA). … H.R. 4970 retreats from this forward progress by failing to include several critical provisions that are part of the Senate-passed VAWA reauthorization bill.? For instance, H.R. 4970 fails to provide for concurrent special domestic violence criminal jurisdiction by tribal authorities over non-Indians, and omits clarification of tribal courts' full civil jurisdiction regarding certain protection orders over non-Indians.? Given that three out of five Native American women experience domestic violence in their lifetime, these omissions in H.R. 4970 are unacceptable.? The bill also fails to include language that would prohibit discrimination against LGBT victims in VAWA grant programs. … H.R. 4970 also takes direct aim at immigrant victims of domestic violence and sexual assault by removing critical protections currently in law” [Statement Of Administration Policy, H.R. 4970 – Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2012, 5/15/12]IN 2008 ROMNEY CLAIMED HE “WAS NOT FAMILIAR WITH” THE VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN ACT, AND HAS NOT STATED A POSITION SINCE THEN2008: Romney “Surprised Some Women’s Right Advocates” By Claiming He Was “Not Familiar With” The Violence Against Women Act. “During an ‘Ask Mitt Anything’ forum at the Derry-Salem Elks Club here, former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney demurred when an audience member asked him whether he would hold up reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act on the grounds that it kept men from visiting their children. ‘I'm not familiar with the Act,’ Romney replied. The answer surprised some women's rights advocates, since the Violence Against Women Act -- which established new federal crimes for domestic violence, sexual assault and stalking -- has been federal law for more than a dozen years. Former President Bill Clinton signed it in 1994, it was the subject of a high-profile Supreme Court case in 2000 and has been reauthorized twice by Congress. Bush signed the most recent version in 2006.” [Washington Post, 1/7/08]Romney Spokesperson Eric Fehrnstrom: Romney “Is Not Familiar With The Details Of That Particular Federal Law Well Enough To Debate It.” “Romney spokesman Eric Fehrnstrom said his boss cares about women who are under physical threat from their partners. ‘Mitt Romney is opposed to domestic violence,’ Fehrnstrom wrote in an e-mail. ‘He is not familiar with the details of that particular federal law well enough to debate it. As a governor, he is better acquainted with state laws that protect battered women, and he upheld and enforced those laws.’” [Washington Post, 1/7/08]ATTACKToplineROMNEY WOULD RAISE TAXES ON THE MIDDLE CLASS, REPEAL SAFEGUARDS AND CUT FUNDING FOR WOMEN’S HEALTH AND REFUSED TO SUPPORT EQUAL PAY FOR EQUAL WORKWall Street Journal: “A New Study Released Wednesday Suggests That Mitt Romney’s Tax Plan Would Benefit The Rich And Hurt The Poor And Middle Class, No Matter How Current Blanks In The Plan Are Filled In.”” [Wall Street Journal, 8/1/12]Romney: “If I’m President, I Will Repeal Obamacare, And I’ll Kill It Dead On Its First Day.” [Romney town hall, Collinsville, IL, 3/17/12]Romney Said Of Federal Cuts He Would Make: “Planned Parenthood, We're Going To Get Rid Of That.” Romney: “My test is pretty simple. Is the program so critical, it's worth borrowing money from China to pay for it? And on that basis of course you get rid of Obamacare, that's the easy one. But there are others. Planned Parenthood, we're going to get rid of that.” [KSDK (St. Louis, MO), 3/13/12]Romney Endorsed The Blunt Amendment Which Would Allow Employers To “Have Free Rein To Pick And Choose Your Medical Care As He Or She Saw Fit--So If The Boss Believed That Birth Control Were An Affront To God And Nature, Well, Too Bad For You.”“And yet, just weeks after Obama announced the compromise, Senator Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) proposed legislation that would allow any employer or insurance company to decline to cover?any?medical care for any moral or religious reason. Under the law, your boss would have free rein to pick and choose your medical care as he or she saw fit--so if the boss believed that birth control were an affront to God and nature, well, too bad for you; you'd have to shell out the full monthly cost for your pill pack.?The Blunt Amendment (which Romney endorsed)?was blocked in the Senate with an extremely narrow margin--51 to 48--with Maine's Olympia Snowe (who announced around the same time that she would not be seeking reelection) the only Republican voting against it.” [Gretchen Voss, Women’s Health, September 2012]Headline: “Romney Won't Say Whether He Would Have Signed Lilly Ledbetter Act” [Huffington Post, 4/16/12]Headline: “Mitt Romney Mum On Paycheck Fairness Bill.” [Huffington Post, 6/4/12]Ryan Women – Cut DownRYAN OPPOSES ABORTIONS IN NEARLY ALL CIRCUMSTANCES, EVEN IN CASES OF RAPE AND INCEST AND EVEN SUPPORTED NARROWING THE DEFINITION OF RAPE TO “FORCIBLE RAPE”New York Times Editorial: Ryan “Has Long Wanted To Ban Access To Abortion Even In The Case Of Rape, The Ideology Espoused In This Year’s Republican Platform.” [Editorial, New York Times, 8/27/12]2011: Ryan Co-Sponsored The Sanctity Of Human Life Act, A Personhood Bill That Defines Life As Beginning At Conception. [HR 212, Co-sponsored 1/7/11]Under The Sanctity Of Human Life Act, “Abortion And Some Forms Of Birth Control Could Be Construed As Murder.” “The concept of personhood is a fundamental tenet of the anti-abortion movement, and under this definition, abortion and some forms of birth control could be construed as murder.” [New York Times, 8/12/12]Los Angeles Times: Ryan “Opposes Legal Abortion In All Circumstances Except When The Life Of The Mother Is At Risk.” [Los Angeles Times, 8/13/12]2011: Ryan Co-Sponsored The “No Taxpayer Funding For Abortion Act,” Which Redefined “Rape” As “Forcible Rape” For Purposed Of Limiting Federal Funding Of Abortion Services. In 2011, Ryan and Todd Akin co-sponsored the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortions Act. According to the Washington Post, “[a] Republican bill seeking to permanently cut off federal funding for abortions has angered women's groups that say it alters the definition of rape, permitting coverage for the procedure only in cases in which the rape is considered ‘forcible.’ The most well-known provision that would become permanent under the bill is the Hyde Amendment, which prevents some federally funded health-care programs from covering abortions.” [HR 3 Co-Sponsored 1/20/11,Vote #292, 5/4/11; Washington Post, 2/1/11]New York Times Editorial: “Mr. Ryan Also Co-Sponsored…A Bill That Would Have Narrowed The Definition Of Rape To Reduce The Number Of Poor Women Who Can Get An Abortion Through Medicaid.” [Editorial, New York Times, 8/27/12]RYAN VOTED AGAINST LILLY LEDBETTER FAIR PAY ACT AND THE PAYCHECK FAIRNESS ACTRyan Voted Against Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. [S 181, Vote #37, 1/27/09]Ryan: “What Women Are Asking Me About Is Not Some Obscure Vote Or Something Like That.” Paul Ryan, Interview, WKMG, Orlando, FL, 8/20/12]2009: Ryan Voted Against The Paycheck Fairness Act. [H.R. 5, Vote 8, 1/9/09]RYAN CO-SPONSORED AND VOTED IN FAVOR OF THE PROTECT LIFE ACT, WHICH COULD HAVE ALLOWED HOSPITALS TO DENY LIFESAVING CARE TO WOMEN AND SUPPORTED REQUIRING WOMEN TO HAVE AN ULTRASOUND2011: Ryan Co-Sponsored And Voted In Favor Of The Protect Life Act, Which Allowed Hospitals To Deny Lifesaving Health Care To Women. [HR 358, Vote #789, 10/13/11; Co-sponsored 1/20/11The Hill: Bill Would Allow Hospitals To Decline To Perform Abortions, Even If Woman’s Life Was At Stake. “Another [bill that Ryan supported] would let hospitals decline to perform abortions, based on religious conviction, even if the life of the pregnant woman is at stake.” [The Hill, 8/15/12]Ryan Co-Sponsored A Bill To Require Women Seeking Abortions To Undergo An Ultrasound. [HR 3805, Ultrasound Informed Consent Act, Introduced 1/23/12; Co-Sponsors] RYAN VOTED AGAINST PROHIBITING FATHERS WHO IMPREGNATED THEIR DAUGHTER FROM SUING THE DOCTOR WHO PERFORMS THE ABORTION?2005: Ryan Voted Against Barring Fathers From Suing A Doctor Who Performs An Abortion On Daughters Who Become Pregnant Due To Incest Or Rape By The Father. [HR 748, Vote #143, 4/27/05]Washington Post: The Motion Would Have Barred Fathers From Suing Doctors Who Provide An Abortion “In Cases Where They Have Impregnated Their Minor Daughter.” “Members defeated a Democratic bid to prevent fathers from filing suits under HR 748 (above) in cases where they have impregnated their minor daughter. This preserved language enabling fathers who commit rape and incest to bring civil suits under terms of the bill.” [Washington Post, 5/1/05]RYAN REPEATEDLY VOTED TO END FEDERAL FUNDING FOR PLANNED PARENTHOOD AND SUPPORTED ALLOWING EMPLOYERS TO DENY HEALTH COVERAGE FOR CONTRACEPTION AND OTHER SERVICES?Ryan Co-Sponsored Bill Prohibiting Funding For Any Organization That Provides Abortion Services. [HR 217, Co-Sponsors, introduced 1/7/11]Ryan Voted To Defund Planned Parenthood. [H Con Res 36, Vote #271, 4/14/11; HR 1, Pence amendment #11, Vote #93, 2/18/11; HR 3043, Vote #684, 7/19/07]Ryan On The HHS Contraception Mandate: Romney-Ryan Administration “Will Void This Right Away.”?Q: “As a Roman Catholic priest and -- Catholics in particular and religious people in general are worried about the erosion of religious liberty in this country. What can we expect from a Romney-Ryan ticket?” REP. RYAN: “Look, I didn't set it -- as you probably know, I'm a Catholic as well. And -- (inaudible, applause) -- when I read this ruling, I was horrified. President Obama, through his imposition of ‘Obamacare,’ through this rule from the Department of Health and Human Services, is requiring Catholic churches, charities, hospitals to violate their own conscience, their own tenets. This is the First Amendment to the Constitution -- religious liberty, freedom of conscience. This is the First Amendment to our Constitution. I will tell you this. This will not stand in a Mitt Romney administration. Mitt Romney will respect religious liberty, and we will void this right away. We should not have to sue our own government to protect our religious freedoms. That's what our church is doing right now. We will not do this.” [Ryan Remarks in Cincinnati, Ohio, 9/25/12]?2011: Ryan Cosponsored Legislation That Would Have Allowed Employers to Decline Coverage. [HR 1179, Ryan Co-sponsored 2/24/12]Romney And Ryan Backed ProposalsTo Ban Abortion, Even In Cases Of Rape And IncestROMNEY SAID THAT HE HAS THE SAME POSITIONS NOW THAT HE HAD WHEN HE PREVIOUSLY RAN FOR PRESIDENT…2012: Romney Said He “Had The Same Positions Today” As “When I Ran For President Last Time, So What You See Is What You Get.” Romney: “In terms of my positions, my conservative positions were seen in my work as governor. I wrote a book that describes my view for the country. I’ve run for president before. Had the same positions today that I had when I was governor, when I wrote the book and when I ran for president last time, so what you see is what you get.” [Tommy Tucker Show, WWL (New Orleans, LA), 3/23/12]…AND THEN ROMNEY SAID HE WOULD BE “DELIGHTED” TO SIGN A BILL TO OUTLAW ALL ABORTIONSRomney Said He Would Be “Delighted” To Sign A Bill Banning “All Abortions.” QUESTIONER: “Hello, my name is AJ. I'm from Millstone, New Jersey. I would all of the candidates to give an answer on this. If hypothetically, Roe v. Wade was overturned, and the Congress passed a federal ban on all abortions and it came to your desk, would you sign it? Yes or no?” COOPER: “Governor Romney?” ROMNEY: “I agree with Senator Thompson, which is we should overturn Roe v. Wade and return these issues to the states. I would welcome a circumstance where there was such a consensus in this country that we said, we don't want to have abortion in this country at all, period. That would be wonderful. I'd be delighted.” COOPER: “The question is: Would you sign that bill?” ROMNEY: “Let me say it. I'd be delighted to sign that bill. But that's not where we are. That's not where America is today. Where America is is ready to overturn Roe v. Wade and return to the states that authority. But if the Congress got there, we had that kind of consensus in that country, terrific.” [CNN Debate, 11/28/07]THE 2012 REPUBLICAN PARTY PLATFORM INCLUDED A HUMAN LIFE AMENDMENT, WHICH WOULD BAN ABORTION, AND DID NOT INCLUDE EXCEPTIONS FOR RAPE OR INCESTThe 2012 Republican Party Platform “Was Written At The Direction Of Romney’s Campaign.” “It didn’t take long for strains within the Republican Party to surface Monday as national delegates got down to work on a final draft of the party platform, one week before the nominating convention opens. … There is no doubt about who is in charge, of course. Delegates for presumptive nominee Mitt Romney are voting down substantive changes to the platform language that was written at the direction of Romney’s campaign.” [Los Angeles Times, 8/20/12]?The GOP Platform “Seeks Passage Of A Constitutional Amendment That Would Extend Legal Rights To The Unborn, Essentially Banning Abortion” And “The Language In The Platform Includes No Exceptions For Rape Or Incest.”[NPR, 8/21/12]RYAN HAS CO-SPONSORED A PERSONHOOD BILL, WHICH COULD, IN EFFECT, BAN ALL ABORTIONS EVEN IN CASES OF RAPE AND INCEST, AND BAN SOME COMMON FORMS OF BIRTH CONTROL2011: Ryan Co-Sponsored The Sanctity Of Human Life Act, A Personhood Bill That Defines Life As Beginning At Conception. “On January 7, 2011, U.S. Representative Paul Broun (R-GA) introduced House Resolution (H.R.) 212, the Sanctity of Human Life Act. Co-sponsored by 62 representatives, including Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, the bill declares that: the right to life guaranteed by the Constitution is vested in each human being, and is the paramount and most fundamental right of a person; and the life of each human being begins with fertilization, cloning, or its functional equivalent, irrespective of sex, health, function or disability, defect, stage of biological development, or condition of dependency, at which time every human being shall have all the legal and constitutional attributes and privileges of personhood.” [Pro-Life Wisconsin website, , accessed 6/21/12; HR 212, Co-sponsored 1/7/11]Mother Jones: “None Of The Personhood Bills Being Considered In Congress Contain Any Exemptions For Victims Of Rape Or Incest.” [Mother Jones, 11/8/11]Mother Jones: The Sanctity of Human Life Act “Includes Language That Directly Parallels That Of The Mississippi Personhood Amendment.” [Mother Jones, 11/8/11]New York Times: Personhood Amendments, Like The One Proposed In Mississippi, Would Ban Virtually All Abortions, Including Those Resulting From Rape Or Incest.?“A constitutional amendment facing voters in Mississippi on Nov. 8, and similar initiatives brewing in half a dozen other states including Florida and Ohio, would declare a fertilized human egg to be a legal person, effectively branding abortion and some forms of birth control as murder… The amendment in Mississippi would ban virtually all abortions, including those resulting from rape or incest. It would bar some birth control methods, including IUDs and ‘morning-after pills,’ which prevent fertilized eggs from implanting in the uterus. It would also outlaw the destruction of embryos created in laboratories.” [New York Times,?10/25/11]Under The Sanctity Of Human Life Act, “Abortion And Some Forms Of Birth Control Could Be Construed As Murder.” “The concept of personhood is a fundamental tenet of the anti-abortion movement, and under this definition, abortion and some forms of birth control could be construed as murder.” [New York Times, 8/12/12]RYAN OPPOSES ABORTION, EVEN IN CASES OF RAPE OR INCESTNew York Times Editorial: Ryan “Has Long Wanted To Ban Access To Abortion Even In The Case Of Rape, The Ideology Espoused In This Year’s Republican Platform.” “The full outpouring of hard-right enthusiasm is based, to a large degree, on Mr. Ryan’s sweeping opposition to abortion rights. He has long wanted to ban access to abortion even in the case of rape, the ideology espoused in this year’s Republican platform. (Mr. Romney favors a rape exception.) [Editorial, New York Times, 8/27/12]1998: Ryan Supported Abortion Ban With Exception Only For Mother’s Life. “Ryan has said he favors only one exception to a ban, to save a woman’s life.” [Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 10/30/98]RYAN SAID OF ABORTION IN THE CASE OF RAPE: “THE METHOD OF CONCEPTION DOESN’T CHANGE THE DEFINITION OF LIFE”When Asked About His Stance On Abortion In Cases Of Rape, Ryan Said, “The Method Of Conception Doesn’t Change The Definition Of Life.” In an interview with WJHL-TV’s Josh Smith, the following exchange occurred: “SMITH: Abortion, now. Something we’re talking about. And I think our viewers would love to know exactly where you stand, specifically when—you’re pro-life and Catholic… RYAN: Oh, yeah. Yeah. SMITH: …but specifically where you stand when it comes to rape, and when it comes to the issue of should it be legal for a woman to be able to get an abortion if she’s raped. RYAN: I’m very proud of my pro-life record, and I’ve always adopted the idea that—the position that—the method of conception doesn’t change the definition of life.” [Ryan Interview, WJHL (Tri-Cities, TN/VA), 8/23/12]Romney Opposes Roe V. WadeROMNEY OPPOSES ROE V. WADE AND WOULD APPOINT JUSTICES WHO WOULD OVERTURN ITRomney: “I Support The Reversal Of Roe V. Wade Because It Is Bad Law And Bad Medicine.” Romney wrote an op-ed titled “My Pro-Life Pledge” vowing to be pro-life but noting that he would not sign the Susan B. Anthony ‘s Pledge: “I support the reversal of Roe v. Wade, because it is bad law and bad medicine.” [Mitt Romney, National Review Online, 6/18/11]Romney Said He Would Appoint Supreme Court Justices Who Would “Hopefully Reverse Roe V. Wade.” Romney: “I’m in favor of a pro-life policy. The legislation that relates to abortion which is something that is going to have to be approved by the Supreme Court and the key decisions I’ll take as the president will be number one, stopping funding for Planned Parenthood, re-instituting the Mexico City policy which says our funds can’t be used for abortion around the world and appointing justices to the Supreme Court that will follow the Constitution, hopefully reverse Roe v. Wade, and return to the states, the authority for making law with regards to abortion.” [WNWO (Toledo, OH), 2/29/12]Romney Won’t Say Whether He Would Have Signed Lilly Ledbetter, And Refuses To Take A Position On The Paycheck Fairness ActROMNEY REFUSED TO SUPPORT LEGISLATION TO HELP WOMEN FIGHT FOR EQUAL PAY FOR EQUAL WORKHeadline: “Romney Won't Say Whether He Would Have Signed Lilly Ledbetter Act” [Huffington Post, 4/16/12]Washington Post’s Greg Sargent: Romney’s Campaign Said They Were “Not Looking To Change Current Law” In Regards To Lilly Ledbetter, So “The Question Now Is Whether A President Romney Would Veto Or Refuse To Sign Any Effort By A GOP-Controlled Congress To Repeal The Lily Ledbetter Act.” “With Romney’s campaign now arguing that Dems are the ones who are hurting women, thanks to Obama’s bad economic policies, Democrats pounced today on the news that Romney advisers were unable to say on a conference call with reporters whether he supports the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. According to audio of the call circluated by Dems, a Romney adviser, after being questioned about the law, said: ‘We’ll get back to you on that.’ Subsequently, Romney spokesperson Andrea Saul clarified: ‘He supports pay equity and is not looking to change current law.’ The question now is whether a President Romney would veto or refuse to sign any effort by a GOP-controlled Congress to repeal the Lily Ledbetter Act. I’ve asked for further clarification and will update if I hear back.” [Greg Sargent, Washington Post, 4/11/12]Headline: “Mitt Romney Mum On Paycheck Fairness Bill.” [Huffington Post, 6/4/12]Washington Times: Romney Campaign “Didn’t Respond To Five Messages Left Over The Past Week Seeking His Stance On The Paycheck Fairness Act.” “Business groups are opposed to the new legislation, saying it would create a legal morass — but Mr. Romney, the GOP’s presumptive presidential nominee, has been silent. His campaign didn’t respond to five messages left over the past week seeking his stance on the Paycheck Fairness Act. In April, when he was fending off questions about his stance on women’s compensation, his campaign would only say he “supports pay equity” but would not say any more about the new legislation.” [Washington Times, 5/29/12]RYAN VOTED AGAINST LILLY LEDBETTER FAIR PAY ACT AND THE PAYCHECK FAIRNESS ACTRyan Voted Against Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. [S 181, Vote #37, 1/27/09]Ryan Was Asked About Voting Against Lilly Ledbetter And Said: “What Women Are Asking Me About Is Not Some Obscure Vote Or Something Like That.” REPORTER: “Why did you vote against the Lilly Ledbetter Act. Do you believe that women shouldn’t be…” RYAN: “Oh, no. I just…” REPORTER: “…paid the same for the same job as men.” … RYAN: “What women are asking me about is not some obscure vote or something like that. What they’re asking me about, what are you going to do to create jobs so I can go back to work, feed my family, get a good education for my children and get back on the life ladder of prosperity. Of the American dream.”[Paul Ryan, Interview, WKMG, Orlando, FL, 8/20/12]Ryan On Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act: “I Worry About, You Know, A Rash Of Lawsuits.” REPORTER: “Why did you vote against the Lilly Ledbetter Act. Do you believe that women shouldn’t be…” RYAN: “Oh, no. I just…” REPORTER: “…paid the same for the same job as men.” RYAN: “No, I just worry about some of the legal issues that were involved. I worry about, you know, a rash of lawsuits. I think the real question to ask is what is this economy doing for women.” [Paul Ryan, Interview, WKMG, Orlando, FL, 8/20/12]2009: Ryan Voted Against The Paycheck Fairness Act. Paul Ryan, on January 9, 2009, voted against, H.R. 5, the Paycheck Fairness Act, a bill, that “would make it easier for women to prove violations of the Equal Pay Act of 1963, which generally requires equal pay for equal work.” The bill passed the House 256 to 163 with the support of some Republicans. [H.R. 5, Vote 8, 1/9/09 and New York Times, 1/10/09]2011: Ryan Voted Against The House Taking Up The Paycheck Fairness Act. Paul Ryan, on May 31, 2012 voted on “a procedural vote on whether to move forward with the?Paycheck?Fairness?Act. The House voted?233-180?against taking up the bill.” Ryan voted against taking up the bill. [H.Res 667, Vote 297, 5/31/12 and National Women's Law Center, 6/1/12]Ryan Sponsored A Bill To Re-Define RapeRYAN COSPONSORED LEGISLATION WITH TODD AKIN THAT WOULD HAVE REDEFINED RAPE AS “FORCIBLE RAPE” AND LIMITED ABORTION COVERAGE FOR RAPE VICTIMS2011: Ryan Co-Sponsored The “No Taxpayer Funding For Abortion Act,” Which Initially Redefined “Rape” As “Forcible Rape” For Purposed Of Limiting Federal Funding Of Abortion Services. In 2011, Ryan and Todd Akin co-sponsored the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortions Act. According to the Washington Post, “[a] Republican bill seeking to permanently cut off federal funding for abortions has angered women's groups that say it alters the definition of rape, permitting coverage for the procedure only in cases in which the rape is considered ‘forcible.’ The most well-known provision that would become permanent under the bill is the Hyde Amendment, which prevents some federally funded health-care programs from covering abortions.” [HR 3 Co-Sponsored 1/20/11,Vote #292, 5/4/11; Washington Post, 2/1/11]Bloomberg: Ryan Co-sponsored The Legislation Before The Word “Forcible” Was Later Removed In Committee. “While the legislation didn’t explain the difference between rape and forcible rape, the word ‘forcible’ was removed from each bill in committee by amendments from Republicans following criticism from Democratic lawmakers and reproductive-rights groups. Ryan and Akin signed on to the bills before the language was changed.” [Bloomberg, 8/22/12]Washington Post: Redefining Rape As Forcible Rape “Could Distinguish It From Other Kinds Of Sexual Assault That Are Typically Recognized As Rape, Including Statutory Rape And Attacks That Occur Because Of Drugs Or Verbal Threats.” “The most well-known provision that would become permanent under the bill is the Hyde Amendment, which prevents some federally funded health-care programs from covering abortions. For years, it has allowed exemptions in cases of rape and incest, and when the life of the woman is threatened. Under the proposed language, however, rape becomes ‘forcible rape.’ Critics say the modifier could distinguish it from other kinds of sexual assault that are typically recognized as rape, including statutory rape and attacks that occur because of drugs or verbal threats.” [Washington Post, 2/1/11]New York Times Editorial: Ryan Co-Sponsored A Bill With Todd Akin “That Would Have Narrowed The Definition Of Rape To Reduce The Number Of Poor Women Who Can Get An Abortion Through Medicaid.” “Mr. Ryan also co-sponsored, along with Representative Todd Akin of Missouri, a bill that would have narrowed the definition of rape to reduce the number of poor women who can get an abortion through Medicaid.? Besides that, he has co-sponsored more than three dozen anti-abortion bills, including measures that would require women to get an ultrasound first, bar abortions after 20 weeks in the District of Columbia and end federal spending for family planning programs. Though he urged Mr. Akin to end his Senate race last week over an offensive remark about ‘legitimate rape,’ Mr. Ryan has actually co-sponsored more of these measures than Mr. Akin.? ‘I’m as pro-life as a person gets,’ he said in 2010.” [Editorial, New York Times, 8/27/12]Ryan Voted In Favor Of The Protect Life Act, Which Could Have Permitted Hospitals To Deny Lifesaving Care To WomenRYAN CO-SPONSORED AND VOTED IN FAVOR OF THE PROTECT LIFE ACT, WHICH COULD HAVE ALLOWED HOSPITALS TO DENY LIFESAVING CARE TO WOMEN2011: Ryan Co-Sponsored And Voted In Favor Of The Protect Life Act, Which Allowed Hospitals To Deny Lifesaving Health Care To Women. In 2011, Ryan co-sponsored and voted in favor of the Protect Life Act, a bill that would allow hospitals to deny lifesaving health care to women and restrict a woman’s ability to use her own private insurance for health care. According to the Huffington Post, the bill “would allow federally-funded hospitals that oppose abortions to refuse to perform the procedure, even in cases where a woman would die without it.” The bill passed 251-172. [HR 358, Vote #789, 10/13/11; Co-sponsored 1/20/11; Huffington Post, 10/11/11]?The Protect Life Act Barred Insurance Companies From Covering An Abortion If Any Of Its Customers Received Federal Subsidies And Also Strengthened Conscience Provisions For Health Care Providers. “The House on Thursday returned to an?abortion?issue that nearly sank President Barack Obama's health care law last year with legislation that would bar an insurance plan regulated under the new law from covering?abortion?if any of its customers receive federal subsidies. … The legislation also strengthens conscience protections for anti-abortion?health care providers.” [The Virginian-Pilot, 10/14/11]The Hill: Bill Would Allow Hospitals To Decline To Perform Abortions, Even If Woman’s Life Was At Stake. “Another [bill that Ryan supported] would let hospitals decline to perform abortions, based on religious conviction, even if the life of the pregnant woman is at stake.” [The Hill, 8/15/12]Ryan Supported Requiring Women Considering An Abortion To Undergo An UltrasoundROMNEYSUPPORTED THE IDEA OF REQUIRING WOMEN CONSIDERING AN ABORTION TO HAVE AN ULTRASOUND November 2007: Romney “Came Out, In Principle, For Pending Legislation In Columbia That Would Require Women Seeking Abortions To View An Ultrasound Image Of Their Unborn Children.” [Greenville News, 11/7/07]Romney: “It's A Good Idea For Moms To Be Able To See The Development Of Their Child; I Think It Will Tend To Encourage Adoption Where They Were Considering Abortion As The Alternative.” “Romney also came out, in principle, for pending legislation in Columbia that would require women seeking abortions to view an ultrasound image of their unborn children… Tuesday, he said, ‘It's a good idea for moms to be able to see the development of their child; I think it will tend to encourage adoption where they were considering abortion as the alternative.’ With the specifics of the legislation awaiting renewed debate when the Legislature returns in January, Romney said he couldn't address the various versions, but ‘the principle of providing information to pregnant young women on the development of their child is a good provision.’” [Greenville News, 11/7/07]RYAN CO-SPONSORED A BILL REQUIRING WOMEN CONSIDERING AN ABORTION TO HAVE AN ULTRASOUND Ryan Co-Sponsored A Bill “To Require Abortion Providers, Before A Woman Gives Informed Consent To Any Part Of An Abortion, To Perform An Obstetric Ultrasound On The Pregnant Woman.” According to a CRS summary the Ultrasound Informed Consent Act “Amends the Public Health Service Act to require abortion providers, before a woman gives informed consent to any part of an abortion, to perform an obstetric ultrasound on the pregnant woman, provide a simultaneous explanation of what the ultrasound is depicting, display the ultrasound images so the woman may view them, and provide a complete medical description of the images, including the dimensions of the embryo or fetus, cardiac activity if present and visible, and the presence of external members and internal organs if present and viewable. Prohibits construing this Act to require a woman to view the images or penalizing the provider or the woman if she declines to look at the images. Exempts an abortion provider if the abortion is necessary to save the life of a mother whose life is endangered by a physical disorder, physical illness, or physical injury, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself. Requires the provider to include in the woman's medical file a truthful and accurate certification of the specific medical circumstances that support such determination. Authorizes the Attorney General to commence a civil action in federal court against any abortion provider who knowingly violates this Act. Prescribes penalties. Directs the Attorney General to notify the appropriate state medical licensing authority of penalties assessed. Authorizes a woman upon whom an abortion has been performed in violation of this Act to commence a civil action against the provider for actual and punitive damages.” [HR 3805, Ultrasound Informed Consent Act, Introduced 1/23/12; Co-Sponsors] NARAL Policy Director: Bill Is “Terribly Un-American.” “Donna Crane, policy director for NARAL Pro-Choice America, called the bill ‘terribly un-American.’ ‘In this country we don’t force people to undergo medical procedures just because a politician says to,” Crane said, adding that the bill is “one of just a number of terrible positions’ on women’s rights issues.” [Buzzfeed, 8/11/12]Buzzfeed: Bill Allows For Civil Suits TO Be Brought Against Doctors Who Do Not Comply. “Although the bill does include an exemption for cases in which a woman’s life is at risk, it requires the doctor to provide an explanation in her medical records regarding the circumstances of the life threatening situation. The bill would also provide the Justice Department with the authority to bring civil actions against doctors who do not comply with the law.” [Buzzfeed, 8/11/12]RYAN CO-SPONSORED A BILL TO REQUIRE AN ABORTION DOCTOR TO ADVISE A WOMAN SEEKING AN ABORTION THAT THE PROCESS WILL CAUSE THE UNBORN CHILD PAIN2004: Ryan Co-Sponsored A Bill To Require An Abortion Provider To Explain To A Woman Seeking An Abortion After 20 Weeks That “Congress Has Determined That There Is Substantial Evidence That The Process Will Cause The Unborn Child Pain, And That The Mother Has The Option Of Having Pain-Reducing Drugs Administered Directly To The Child” According to a CRS SummaryUnborn Child Pain Awareness Act of 2004 “Amends the Public Health Service Act to require an abortion provider, before beginning any abortion of a pain-capable unborn child (defined as an unborn child who has reached a probable stage of development of 20 weeks after fertilization), to: (1) make a specified statement to the pregnant woman that Congress has determined that there is substantial evidence that the process will cause the unborn child pain, and that the mother has the option of having pain-reducing drugs administered directly to the child; (2) provide to the woman an Unborn Child Pain Awareness Brochure (unless she waives receipt) and an Unborn Child Pain Awareness Decision Form; and (3) obtain on the form the woman's signature and her explicit request for or refusal of the administration of drugs to the child. Directs the Secretary of Health and Human Services to develop the brochure and form.” [H.R. 4420, Introduced 5/20/04, Co-Sponsors] Ryan Voted To Protect A Father’s Right To Sue The Doctor Who Performed An Abortion On His Daughter, Even In Cases Of IncestRYAN VOTED AGAINST PROHIBITING FATHERS WHO IMPREGNATED THEIR DAUGHTER FROM SUING THE DOCTOR WHO PERFORMS THE ABORTION?2005: Ryan Voted Against Barring Fathers From Suing A Doctor Who Performs An Abortion On Daughters Who Become Pregnant Due To Incest Or Rape By The Father. In 2005, Ryan voted against a motion to recommit the bill to the House Judiciary Committee with instructions to include language which would bar fathers who have committed rape or incest against a minor that resulted in a pregnancy from being able to sue the doctor who performed the abortion. The motion was defeated,?183-245. [HR 748, Vote #143, 4/27/05; CQ Floor Votes, 4/27/05]Washington Post: The Motion Would Have Barred Fathers From Suing Doctors Who Provide An Abortion “In Cases Where They Have Impregnated Their Minor Daughter.” “Members defeated a Democratic bid to prevent fathers from filing suits under HR 748 (above) in cases where they have impregnated their minor daughter. This preserved language enabling fathers who commit rape and incest to bring civil suits under terms of the bill.” [Washington Post, 5/1/05]Romney And Ryan Would Eliminate Funding For Planned Parenthood And Title XROMNEY WOULD ELIMINATE FUNDING FOR PLANNED PARENTHOOD AND TITLE XRomney: “I’ll Cut Off Funding To Planned Parenthood.”?[Romney Town Hall, Shelby Twp., MI, 2/21/12]Ryan Voted To Defund Planned Parenthood. In 2011, Ryan voted in favor of a bill which would insert a section in the FY11 Continuing Resolution which would prohibit Planned Parenthood and its affiliates from receiving federal funding. The resolution would order the Clerk of the House to change H.R. 1473, the FY11 Continuing Resolution, to bar the use of the federal funds to go to Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Inc., or any affiliate. The bill passed 241-185. [H Con Res 36, Vote #271, 4/14/11; The Hill, 4/12/11]Romney Said Of Federal Cuts He Would Make: “Planned Parenthood, We're Going To Get Rid Of That.”Romney: “My test is pretty simple. Is the program so critical, it's worth borrowing money from China to pay for it? And on that basis of course you get rid of Obamacare, that's the easy one. But there are others. Planned Parenthood, we're going to get rid of that.” [KSDK (St. Louis, MO), 3/13/12]Romney Was A “Rarity” For Calling For Title X’s Defunding As No Other Candidates Took A Stand On The Issue And “Anti-Abortion Groups Haven’t Asked Candidates To Oppose” It. “In calling for Title X’s defunding, Romney is a bit of a rarity. No other candidate has taken a stand on the issue. Anti-abortion groups haven’t asked candidates to oppose Title X. The Susan B. Anthony List, for example, only goes as far as asking candidates to pledge to “defund Planned Parenthood and all other contractors and recipients of federal funds with affiliates that perform or fund abortions,” but not eliminate Title X outright. In moving to eliminate Title X, Romney is venturing into a new territory where the party doesn’t have much in the way of a definitive platform.” [Washington Post, 11/4/11]Bloomberg: Ryan “Drafted A Budget Blueprint That Sought To End Federal Dollars For Title X, The National Family-Planning Program.” “As chairman of the House Budget Committee, [Ryan] drafted a budget blueprint that sought to end federal dollars for Title X, the national family-planning program.” [Bloomberg, 8/22/12]Title X Family Planning “Is The Only Federal Grant Program Dedicated Solely To Providing Individuals With Comprehensive Family Planning And Related Preventive Health Services.” “The Title X Family Planning program [‘Population Research and Voluntary Family Planning Programs’ (Public Law 91-572)], was enacted in 1970 as Title X of the Public Health Service Act. Title X is the only Federal grant program dedicated solely to providing individuals with comprehensive family planning and related preventive health services. The Title X program is designed to provide access to contraceptive services, supplies and information to all who want and need them. By law, priority is given to persons from low-income families.” [Health and Human Services, Title X Family Planning, accessed 2/15/12]Title X Provides Preventative Health Services Such As Breast And Pelvic Exams, Breast And Cervical Cancer Screening, And HIV Prevention Education And Testing. “Over the past 40 years, Title X Family Planning clinics have played a critical role in ensuring access to a broad range of family planning and related preventive health services for millions of low-income or uninsured individuals. In addition to contraceptive services and related counseling, Title X-supported clinics provide a number of related preventive health services such as: patient education and counseling; breast and pelvic examinations; breast and cervical cancer screening according to nationally recognized standards of care; sexually transmitted disease (STD) and Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) prevention education, counseling, testing and referral; and pregnancy diagnosis and counseling. By law, Title X funds may not be used in programs where abortion is a method of family planning.” [Health and Human Services, Title X Family Planning, accessed 3/13/12]ROMNEY SUPPORTS THE BLUNT AMENDMENT WHICH WOULD ALLOW ANY EMPLOYER TO OPT OUT OF PROVIDING CONTRACEPTIVE COVERAGE – PUTTING AT RISK THE NEARLY 79 MILLION WOMEN WHO RELY ON THEIR EMPLOYER FOR HEALTH CARERomney Endorsed The Blunt Amendment Which Would Allow Employers To “Have Free Rein To Pick And Choose Your Medical Care As He Or She Saw Fit--So If The Boss Believed That Birth Control Were An Affront To God And Nature, Well, Too Bad For You.”“And yet, just weeks after Obama announced the compromise, Senator Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) proposed legislation that would allow any employer or insurance company to decline to cover?any?medical care for any moral or religious reason. Under the law, your boss would have free rein to pick and choose your medical care as he or she saw fit--so if the boss believed that birth control were an affront to God and nature, well, too bad for you; you'd have to shell out the full monthly cost for your pill pack.?The Blunt Amendment (which Romney endorsed)?was blocked in the Senate with an extremely narrow margin--51 to 48--with Maine's Olympia Snowe (who announced around the same time that she would not be seeking reelection) the only Republican voting against it.” [Gretchen Voss, Women’s Health, September 2012]Nearly 79 Million Women Received Health Care Coverage Through Their Employer.? According to the most recent census data, 78.8 million women under the age of 65 received health insurance coverage from their employer.[U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplement, 2011]RYAN SUPPORTS A SIMILAR BILL IN THE HOUSERyan On The HHS Contraception Mandate: Romney-Ryan Administration “Will Void This Right Away.”?Q: “As a Roman Catholic priest and -- Catholics in particular and religious people in general are worried about the erosion of religious liberty in this country. What can we expect from a Romney-Ryan ticket?” REP. RYAN: “Look, I didn't set it -- as you probably know, I'm a Catholic as well. And -- (inaudible, applause) -- when I read this ruling, I was horrified. President Obama, through his imposition of ‘Obamacare,’ through this rule from the Department of Health and Human Services, is requiring Catholic churches, charities, hospitals to violate their own conscience, their own tenets. This is the First Amendment to the Constitution -- religious liberty, freedom of conscience. This is the First Amendment to our Constitution. I will tell you this. This will not stand in a Mitt Romney administration. Mitt Romney will respect religious liberty, and we will void this right away. We should not have to sue our own government to protect our religious freedoms. That's what our church is doing right now. We will not do this.” [Ryan Remarks in Cincinnati, Ohio, 9/25/12]?Massachusetts: Romney Cut Women’s Health Care In MassachusettsROMNEY VETOED FUNDING FOR BREAST CANCER DETECTIONRomney Vetoed $2,785,551 For Benefits To Eligible Women Who Require Medical Treatment For Either Breast Or Cervical Cancer. In the vetoes for fiscal year 2004 General Appropriation Act, Romney vetoed line item 4000-0875. [Executive Office For Administration And Finance, Veto Details For Governor’s FY04 Budget Vetoes, P. 1, Line Item 4000-0875, 6/30/03, FY04 General Appropriation Act, Line Item 4000-0875]Romney Vetoed Cervical And Breast Cancer Funds Because It Was Not Consistent With His Budget Recommendations. In Governor Romney’s Veto Explanations for line item 4000-0875, Cervical/Breast Cancer, he wrote: “I am vetoing this item because it is not consistent with my House 1 recommendation.” [Governor’s FY04 Budget Vetoes, Line Item Veto Explanations, Line Item 4000-0875, P. 12, 6/30/03]Romney Vetoed $35,678 From Early Breast Cancer Detection Programs. In the fiscal year 2004 budget vetoes, Romney vetoed $35,678 in line item 4570-1500, which is for “Breast Cancer Prevention”. [Governor’s FY04 Budget Vetoes, Line Item Veto Explanations, P. 18, Line Item 4570-1500, 6/30/03]Romney Vetoed $107,500 For A Breast Cancer Exposure Study. [Executive Office For Administration And Finance, Veto Details For Governor’s FY06 Budget Vetoes, P. 5, Line Item 4570-1500, 6/30/05]During Veto Override Vote On Breast Cancer Funds, Legislator Explained Breast Cancer Exposure Study Would Examine 14 Homes On Cape Cod. According to the minutes of the House of Representatives Session, “Rep. St. Fleur said she opposes the veto and supports an override. If one was to go to the DPH web site, you would find the first phase of the report. The issue is with respect to the second phase. We are talking about life on the Cape. Based on the report, in studying toxins in households, on the Cape they have found higher levels of breast cancer on the Cape than in any other area of the state. After the first phase, because of high levels of toxins in 120 homes, they needed to go back and retest about 14 households. The incidence of breast cancer is 21 percent higher on Cape Cod than the national average. Fourteen homes had alarming levels of toxicity. Further testing is urgently needed so folks understand what is happening in their homes and so they can arm themselves to protect themselves from further injury.” [State House News Service, House Session, 7/14/05]ROMNEY WANTED TO REMOVE ALL COVERAGE MANDATES IN MASSACHUSETTS…Romney: “So In The Working On Our Health Care Plan I Worked Very Hard To Get The Legislature To Remove All Of The Mandated Coverages.” “Romney said that ‘that provision was put in Massachusetts before I was governor, and then when I was governor I tried to have it removed in our health care plan. So in the working on our health care plan I worked very hard to get the legislature to remove all of the mandated coverages, including contraception. So quite clearly he needs to understand that was a provision that got there before I did and it was one that I fought to remove.’” [ABC News, 2/8/12; Romney Press Availability, Atlanta, GA, 2/8/12]2009: Romney Called For Massachusetts To Remove Coverage Mandates. Romney wrote, “The Massachusetts plan costs the state more than expected, largely because the legislature has been unwilling to further reduce state payments to hospitals for free care. The costs should be brought in line by eliminating these payments, by requiring sustainable copremiums and by removing coverage mandates (for example, every policy is now required to include unlimited in vitro fertilization procedures).” [Romney Op-Ed, Newsweek, 5/2/09]…WHICH INCLUDED:The Massachusetts Health Care Plan Covered Contraceptive Services. [Comprehensive Review Of Mandated Benefits In Massachusetts, 7/7/08]The Massachusetts Health Care Plan Covered Cytologic Screening (Pap Smear). [Comprehensive Review Of Mandated Benefits In Massachusetts, 7/7/08]The Massachusetts Health Care Plan Covered Mammography. [Comprehensive Review Of Mandated Benefits In Massachusetts, 7/7/08]The Massachusetts Health Care Plan Covered Maternity Health Care (Including Minimum Maternity Stay). [Comprehensive Review Of Mandated Benefits In Massachusetts, 7/7/08]The Massachusetts Health Care Plan Covered Preventative Care For Children Up To Age Six (Including Specific Newborn Testing). [Comprehensive Review Of Mandated Benefits In Massachusetts, 7/7/08]The Massachusetts Health Care Plan Covered Hearing Screening For Newborns. [Comprehensive Review Of Mandated Benefits In Massachusetts, 7/7/08]The Massachusetts Health Care Plan Covered Infertility Treatment. [Comprehensive Review Of Mandated Benefits In Massachusetts, 7/7/08]ROMNEY “FOUGHT TO REMOVE” CONTRACEPTION COVERAGE Romney Said That As Governor, He “Fought To Remove” Health Care Mandates Requiring Coverage Of Contraception. “‘Romney said that ‘that provision was put in Massachusetts before I was governor, and then when I was governor I tried to have it removed in our health care plan. So in the working on our health care plan I worked very hard to get the legislature to remove all of the mandated coverages, including contraception. So quite clearly he needs to understand that was a provision that got there before I did and it was one that I fought to remove.’” [ABC News, 2/8/12]Romney: As Governor, “I Worked To Try And Remove Those Mandated Coverages, Such As Contraceptive Coverage.” Romney: “Actually before I became governor, there was also a measure which required insurance policies in Massachusetts to include contraception. And after I became governor, we worked out our health care plan. I worked to try and remove those mandated coverages, such as contraceptive coverage.” [Romney Press Availability, Atlanta, GA, 2/8/12]Massachusetts: Romney Supported Requiring Religious Institutions To Cover ContraceptionMASSACHUSETTS LAW REQUIRES HEALTH INSURERS TO COVER CONTRACEPTION—WITH A SIMILAR EXCEPTION FOR RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATIONS AS THE FEDERAL RULESINCE 2002, MASSACHUSETTS HAS REQUIRED HEALTH PLANS THAT TO COVER CONTRACEPTION ON THE SAME TERMS AS THEY COVERAGE OTHER OUTPATIENT SERVICES2002: Massachusetts Governor Jane Swift Signed A Law Requiring Health Insurers To Cover Contraceptives. “Without fanfare, Acting Gov. Swift signed a law last Thursday afternoon that requires insurers to cover the cost of contraceptives and hormone replacement therapy. Pro-choice advocates had pushed the bill for years. The law exempts health insurance contracts purchased by churches or church-controlled organizations. It applies to policies being renewed and to all policies issued in Massachusetts on or after Jan. 1, 2003.”? [State House News Service, 3/11/02] 2012: Massachusetts General Law Has Continued To Require That Health Insurance Carriers Must Provide FDA-Approved Prescription Contraceptive Drugs Or Devices. “Any individual policy of accident and sickness insurance issued pursuant to section 108 and any group blanket policy of accident and sickness insurance issued pursuant to section 110 that is delivered, issued or renewed within or without the commonwealth and that provides benefits for outpatient prescription drugs and devices shall provide benefits for hormone replacement therapy for peri and post menopausal women and for outpatient prescription contraceptive drugs or devices which have been approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration under the same terms and conditions as for such other prescription drugs or devices…” [Mass. Gen. Laws, Ch. 176G, Sec 40, assessed 1/5/12]Emergency Contraceptive Drugs Such As Plan B Are FDA-Approved Prescription Contraceptives, And Massachusetts Health Insurance Carriers Are Required To Cover Them. The FDA approved drug product webpage lists two types of Plan B contraception on its list of approved drug products, including Plan B or Levonorgestrel tablets. [, Accessed 2/6/12]THE MASSACHUSETTS LAW HAS AN EXCEPTION FOR RELIGIOUS EMPLOYERS THAT IS SIMILAR TO THE ONE USED IN THE FEDERAL RULEMassachusetts Law Exempts Policies “Purchased By An Employer That Is A Church Or Qualified Church-Controlled Organization.” “The requirements of this section shall not apply to a health maintenance contract delivered, issued or renewed pursuant to this chapter if that contract is purchased by an employer that is a church or qualified church-controlled organization, as those terms are defined in 26 U.S.C. section 3121(w)(3)(A) and (B).” [Mass. Gen. Laws, Ch. 176G, Sec 40]2002: Churches And Qualified Church-Controlled Organizations Were Exempted From The Massachusetts Law Requiring Health Insurance Providers Cover Contraceptive Services. “(c) This section shall not apply to a subscription certificate under an individual or group medical service agreement delivered, issued or renewed under this chapter if that subscription certificate is purchased by an employer that is a church or qualified church-controlled organization, as those terms are defined in 26 U.S.C. section 3121(w)(3)(A) and (B).”? [An Act Providing Equitable Coverage Of Services Under Health Plans, Subsection (c) of Section 3, signed 3/7/02] Massachusetts: Romney Cut Services For Domestic ViolenceBOSTON GLOBE COLUMNIST ATTACKED THE ROMNEY ADMINISTRATION FOR RETURNING HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS IN UNSPENT FUNDS EARMARKED FOR DOMESTIC VIOLENCE SHELTERS, ADDING TO THE ADMINISTRATION’S “ABYSMAL RECORD” ON PROTECTING WOMENBoston Globe Columnist: Kerry Healey Had A “Damning” And “Abysmal Record” When It Came To Protecting Women From Violence. “Could we please stop talking about Kerry Healey's odious campaign commercials and start looking at the abysmal record of this self-styled advocate for women victimized by violence? It's fine if some members of the Governor's Commission on Sexual and Domestic Violence want to excoriate the lieutenant governor for her misleading ads and her despicable campaign tactics, but Healey's actual record is far more damning.” [Columnist Eileen McNamara, Boston Globe, 11/1/06]Boston Globe Columnist: Romney’s Department Of Social Services Returned $450,000 To The Treasury For Money “Specifically Budgeted For Domestic Violence Services” In Fiscal Year 2006. “Even as it eviscerated funding for proven programs to benefit survivors of domestic violence, the state Department of Social Services in July returned $24 million of its budget to the state treasury unspent. Of that total, $450,000 was specifically budgeted for domestic violence services.” [Columnist Eileen McNamara, Boston Globe, 11/1/06]ROMNEY’S ADMINISTRATION CUT HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS FROM DOMESTIC VIOLENCE SHELTERSBoston Globe Columnist: “The Romney-Healey Administration This Year Slashed Funding For One Of The Most Well-Respected Domestic Violence Programs In Massachusetts, Forcing The New England Learning Center For Women In Transition To Close Its Emergency Shelter In Greenfield Last Month.” [Columnist Eileen McNamara, Boston Globe, 11/1/06]FY2006: New England Learning Center For Women In Transition Was Itemized $90,000 In The State Budget. [Massachusetts Fiscal Year 2006 Budget, Chapter 45 of the Acts of 2005, Accessed 4/16/12]FY2007: New England Learning Center For Women In Transition Was Not Itemized In The State Budget. [Massachusetts Fiscal Year 2007 Budget, Chapter 139 of the Acts of 2006, Accessed 4/16/12]Boston Globe Columnist: Massachusetts “Slashed State Aid 33 Percent For An Equally Venerable Domestic Violence Shelter In Brockton, Forcing The Cash-Starved Program To Cut Its Staff Or Beg Donations From A Community Short On Disposable Income.” “This champion of women's safety slashed state aid 33 percent for an equally venerable domestic violence shelter in Brockton, forcing the cash-starved program to cut its staff or beg donations from a community short on disposable income. (Brockton residents last month came through with $60,000 to help Womansplace pay for its employees' medical insurance.) [Columnist Eileen McNamara, Boston Globe, 11/1/06]Patriot Ledger Editorial: The Department Of Social Services Had “Little Explanation For “A Cut Of One-Third In Funding To Womansplace Crisis Center In Brockton, Which Has 12 Beds” Or For The Cuts To The DOVE Organization.” As part of redesigning contract evaluations, one of the South Shore's premier agencies serving families in crisis - Quincy's DOVE - had its contract application denied in August. DSS had little explanation for the move that threatened 18 shelter beds, or for a cut of one-third in funding to WomansPlace Crisis Center in Brockton, which has 12 beds. And state officials had no plans whatever for how the beds - used by families fleeing violent homes - would be replaced elsewhere.” [Editorial, Patriot Ledger, 10/25/06]Boston Globe Columnist: “This Protector Of Womanhood Also Eliminated Funding For An 18-Bed Shelter In Quincy That Every Year Turns Away 150 To 200 Families In Need Because Of A Shortage Of Space.” [Columnist Eileen McNamara, Boston Globe, 11/1/06]Massachusetts Was Scheduled To Cut Off Funding To “Domestic Violence Ended” Shelter, But Made The Decision To Continue Funding The Program Until January 1st, 2007. “The Department of Social Services has extended the contract of a Quincy shelter for domestic violence victims until Jan. 1 despite saying it would stop funding because the shelter's proposal failed to pass muster. The state planned to pull funding from the 18-bed DOVE, or Domestic Violence Ended, shelter on Oct. 1. But DSS and DOVE officials confirmed that funding to the shelter had been restored temporarily, a decision that had been quietly made weeks ago. DOVE Board of Directors President Gini Kurtzman said that DSS had also "encouraged" the shelter to reapply for long-term funding.” [Patriot Ledger, 9/28/06]ROMNEY VETOED THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS FOR DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AND SEXUAL ASSAULT SERVICESRomney Vetoed Funding And The Language For A Domestic Violence And Sexual Assault Services “Program Not Recommended.”? In the Fiscal Year 2007 Budget, Romney vetoed $158,000 in Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault Services: “I am striking language which earmarks funding for a program not recommended.? The reduction in the item incorporates the amount of stricken earmarked funds.” [Executive Office For Administration And Finance, Fiscal Year 2007 General Appropriation Act Veto Items, Line Item 4513-1130, P.10, 7/8/06]Romney Vetoed $158,000 For Intervention Services And Crisis Housing For Sexual Violence And Intimate Partner Violence. In the Fiscal Year 2007 Budget, Romney Vetoed $158,000 For Domestic Violence And Sexual Assault Servicesin line item 4513-1130: “Provided, that of the amount appropriated in this item, funds shall be expended for rape prevention and victim service, including the statewide Spanish language hotline for sexual abuse and statewide suicide and violence prevention outreach to gay and lesbian youth; provided further, that not less than $158,000 shall be expended for the public health model of community engagement and intervention services and crisis housing for sexual violence and intimate partner violence in the GLBT community” [Executive Office For Administration And Finance, Fiscal Year 2007 Veto Message, Line Item 4513-1130, P.36, 7/8/06]ROMNEY VETOED LEGAL SERVICES FOR BATTERED WOMENRomney Vetoed $2.49 Million For The Battered Women’s Legal Assistance Project. In the fiscal year 2004 budget vetoes, Romney vetoed line item 0321-1600 which included “$2,490,993 shall be expended for the battered women's legal assistance project”. [Governor’s FY04 Budget Vetoes, Veto Details, Line Item 0321-1600, P.1, 6/30/03, Fiscal Year 2004 General Appropriations Act, Line Item 0321-1600, 6/30/03]Romney Vetoed $7.5 Million For Legal Assistance Programs. In the fiscal year 2004 budget vetoes, Romney vetoed line item 0321-1600 which said “For the Massachusetts Legal Assistance Corporation to provide legal representation for indigent or otherwise disadvantaged residents of the commonwealth…….$7,564,142“ [Governor’s FY04 Budget Vetoes, Line Item Veto Explanations, Line Item 0321-1600, P. 1, 6/30/03, Fiscal Year 2004 General Appropriations Act, Line Item 0321-1600, 6/30/03]Romney Vetoed The Entire $7.56 Million Budget For The Massachusetts Legal Assistance Corporation, Which Had Earmarked $2.5 Million For The Battered Women’s Legal Assistance Project. “Without a legislative override of Governor Mitt Romney's decision to wipe out state funding for civil legal aid, the ability of the Massachusetts Legal Assistance Corporation to serve people of limited means will be eviscerated. There are plenty of reasons, beyond basic social justice, for the average taxpayer to care. The penny-wise, pound-foolish decision to eliminate the entire $7.56 million appropriation for MLAC will cost money, as well as lives. Not funding the Battered Women's Legal Assistance Project will deprive victims of violence of the representation necessary not only to keep them safe but to ensure that abusive fathers meet their financial obligations to their children. The alternative is state-funded welfare, a far higher cost to the Commonwealth than the $2.5 million being sought in legal assistance.” [Boston Globe, 7/13/03]YOUTHPRO-POTUSPresident Obama Has Taken Action To Support Young AmericansTHE UNEMPLOYMENT RATE AMONG YOUNG ADULTS HAS DECLINED 2.2 PERCENTAGE POINTS OVER THE LAST YEARThe Unemployment Rate For People Ages 20-24 Is Down 2.2 Percentage Points Over The Last Year. According to the Bureau Of Labor Statistics, the unemployment rate for people ages 20-24 was 14.6 percent in September 2011 and declined to 12.4 percent in September 2012. [Bureau Of Labor Statistics, accessed 10/7/12]UNEMPLOYMENT AMONG RECENT COLLEGE GRADUATES IS LOWER THAN WHEN PRESIDENT OBAMA TOOK OFFICEThe Unemployment Rate Among Recent College Graduates Is Lower Than When President Obama Took Office. In January 2009, the unemployment rate among college graduates ages 1624 was 7.9 percent. In September 2012, the unemployment rate among college graduates ages 16 to 24 was 6.3 percent. [Bureau of Labor Statistics, accessed 9/10/12]The Unemployment Rate Among Recent College Graduates Was 1.8 Percentage Points Lower In September 2012 Than In September 2011.? In September 2011, the unemployment rate among college graduates ages 16-24 was 8.1 percent. In September 2012, the unemployment rate among college graduates ages 16 to 24 was 6.3 percent, declining 1.8 percentage points over the last year. [Bureau of Labor Statistics, accessed 9/10/12]PRESIDENT OBAMA SIGNED LEGISLATION TO DOUBLE THE AMOUNT OF PELL GRANT FUNDING, HELPING MILLIONS OF STUDENTS AFFORD COLLEGEPresident Obama Doubled Funding For Pell Grants, Raising The Maximum Pell Award And Increasing The Number Of Recipients To Nearly 10 Million Students. “Thanks in part to these new investments, President Obama has roughly doubled funding for the need-based Pell Grant program, raising the maximum award from $4,731 in fiscal year 2008 to an estimated $5,635 for fiscal year 2013 and increasing the number of recipients by approximately 50 percent to nearly 10 million students.” [Department of Education, Accessed 04/15/12]During The 2011 – 2012 Award Year, 9.7 Million Low And Middle-Income Undergraduates Received Pell Grants With An Average Award Of $3,678. “The Federal Pell Grant Program is the foundation for Federal financial assistance.? It helps ensure financial access to postsecondary education—disbursing $36 billion to 9.7 million low and middle-income undergraduate students during the 2011-2012 award year, with an average award of $3,678.” [Department of Education, Student Financial Administration, Budget Request, FY2013]Under President Obama, The Maximum Pell Grant Award Has Grown From $4,731 For The 2008 – 2009 Award Year To $5,550 For The 2011 – 2012 Award Year. “The maximum Pell Grant award has grown from $4,731 for the 2008–2009 award year to $5,350 for the 2009–2010 award year; $5,550 for the 2010–2011, 2011-2012, and 2012-2013 award years.” [Department of Education, Student Financial Administration, Budget Request, FY2013]PRESIDENT OBAMA ENACTED STUDENT LOAN REFORM TO HELP STUDENTS REDUCE THEIR DEBT COMING OUT OF SCHOOLPresident Obama’s “Pay As You Earn” Student Loan Proposal Caps Income-Based Federal Loan Repayments At 10 Percent Of Income Above A Basic Living Allowance Starting As Soon As 2012 For Certain Borrowers. “Allow borrowers to cap their student loan payments at 10% ofdiscretionary income…Today, the President announced that his Administration is putting forth a new “Pay As You Earn” proposal to make sure these same important benefits are made available to some borrowers as soon as 2012.” [The White House, 10/25/11]More Than 1.6 Million Borrowers Would Be Eligible For A Reduction In Their Monthly Loan Payments. “The Administration estimates that this cap will reduce monthly payments for more than 1.6 million student borrowers.”[White House, 10/25/11]PRESIDENT OBAMA CREATED THE AMERICAN OPPORTUNITY TAX CREDIT, MAKING COLLEGE MORE AFFORDABLE FOR MILLIONS OF STUDENTS AND FAMILIESThe American Opportunity Tax Credit Allows Families With Tuition Expenses To Receive Tax Credits Of Up To $2,500 Each Year For Up To Four Years Per Student. “For tax years 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012, the law allows families with tuition expenses to receive a tax credit of up to $2,500 each year for up to four years per student, with up to $1,000 of the credit being refundable.” [Department of the Treasury Press Release, 1/19/11]President Obama’s Extension Of The American Opportunity Tax Credit Is Expected To Provide Relief To 9.4 Million Families With College Students In 2011. [Department of the Treasury Press Release, 1/19/11]PRESIDENT OBAMA HAS PROPOSED INCENTIVES TO ENCOURAGE COLLEGES, UNIVERSITIES AND STATES TO KEEP TUITION COSTS?UNDER CONTROLPresident Obama Has Proposed A Competitive Race To The Top Program For Higher Education To Reward States That Do More To Contain Rising Tuition And Make It More Affordable For Students To Earn A College Degree. “The President has proposed powerful new incentives for states willing to change policies and practices to strengthen their higher education systems? The Race to the Top: College Affordability and Completion will incentivize governors and state legislatures around the nation to spur needed reform in the higher education sector through a new $1 billion competitive fund that rewards states willing to drive systemic change across their colleges and universities, do more to contain rising tuition, and make it more affordable for students to earn a college degree.” [“Education Blueprint: An Economy Built to Last,” White House, accessed 04/15/12]President Obama Has Proposed Federal Campus-Based Aid Reform That Rewards Colleges That Set Responsible Tuition Policy, Provide Good Value To Students And Families, Serve Low-Income Students. “The President’s proposed reform of federal campus-based aid aims to reward those colleges that keep tuition from spiraling too high and that provide greater value for students? Through modifications to this federal aid program, the Obama Administration would improve the distribution of campus-based financial aid and expand the availability of federal aid available to students by rewarding colleges and universities that succeed in: Setting responsible tuition policy, offering relatively lower net tuition prices and/or restraining tuition growth; providing good value to students and families, offering quality education and training that prepares graduates to obtain employment and repay their loans; serving low-income students, enrolling and graduating relatively higher numbers of Pell eligible students” [“Education Blueprint: An Economy Built to Last,” White House, accessed 04/15/12]PRESIDENT OBAMA SIGNED THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT INTO LAW TO VASTLY EXPAND HEALTH CARE ACCESS AND PROVIDE YOUTH WITH THE SECURITY OF AFFORDABLE, STABLE HEALTH INSURANCEAn Estimated 12.1 Million Young Adults Ages 19 – 29 Will Gain Subsidized Health Care Coverage Once All Of The Affordable Care Act’s Provisions Go Into Effect. “Starting in 2014, of the 14.8 million uninsured adults ages 19 to 29, an estimated 12.1 million could gain subsidized coverage once all the law’s provisions go into effect: 7.2 million may gain coverage under Medicaid and 4.9 million may gain subsidized private coverage through state insurance exchanges.” [The Commonwealth Fund, 05/2011]Over 3 Million Young Adults Gained Health Care Coverage Because Of The Provision Allowing Young Adults Under 26 To Remain On Their Parents’ Insurance. “New survey findings released today by the National Center for Health Statistics show that the extension of dependent health coverage up to age 26 continues to lead to greater rates of insurance coverage among young adults. This policy is one part of the Affordable Care Act, and it took effect for insurance plan renewals beginning on September 23, 2010. The new estimates show that from September 2010 to December 2011, the percentage of adults 19 to 25 with insurance coverage increased from 64.4% to 74.8%, which translates into over 3 million additional young adults with coverage.” [Department of Health and Human Services, 06/19/12]6.6 Million Young Adults Were Able To Sign Up For Coverage On Their Parent’s Insurance Including 3.1 Million Young Adults Who Would Have Been Uninsured Without The Law.?“6.6. million young adults were able to sign up for coverage on their parents’ plans, including 3.1 million young adults who would have been uninsured without the law.” [White House Blog,?06/27/12]?UnemploymentROMNEY ATTRIBUTES THE EFFECTS OF THE RECESSION IN THE FIRST MONTHS OF PRESIDENT OBAMA’S FIRST TERM IN OFFICE TO PRESIDENT OBAMA’S POLICIES, BUT FACT-CHECKERS AND OBSERVERS HAVE SAID THIS APPROACH IS FLAWEDWashington Post’s Ezra Klein: Romney Chose A Time Frame That “Thrusts The Very Worst Of The Recession Into Obama’s Lap Despite The Fact That He Wasn’t Even President Yet.” “The National Bureau of Economic Research?says?the recession officially began in December 2007. The worst of it came in the fourth quarter of 2008. Obama was inaugurated on Jan. 20, 2009. The time frame Romney chose, in other words, thrusts the very worst of the recession into Obama’s lap despite the fact that he wasn’t even president yet.” [Ezra Klein, Washington Post, 4/25/2012]Washington Post’s Ezra Klein: “It’s Like Blaming A Fireman For The Damage The Blaze Did Before He Arrived.” [Ezra Klein, Washington Post, 4/25/2012]Tampa Bay Times PolitiFact: “We Have Taken Points Off Previous Claims For Blaming Officeholders For Situations That Existed At The Beginning Of Their Administrations, Before Their Policies Have Had Time To Take Effect.” “The first problem we find with Saul’s tweet is that it begins counting job losses the first month Obama was in office. We have taken points off previous claims for blaming officeholders for situations that existed at the beginning of their administrations, before their policies have had time to take effect. One could reasonably argue that January 2009 employment figures are more a result of President George W. Bush’s policies, at least as far as any president can be blamed or credited for private-sector hiring.” [Tampa Bay Times, PolitiFact, 4/10/12]New York Times’ Paul Krugman: “…The Romney Campaign Is Banking On Amnesia, On The Hope That Voters Don’t Remember That Mr. Obama Inherited An Economy That Was Already In Free Fall.” [Paul Krugman, New York Times, 4/22/12]EXPERTS AND INDEPENDENT FACT CHECKERS CALL ROMNEY’S CLAIM ABOUT YOUTH UNEMPLOYMENT UNDER PRESIDENT OBAMA “MEANINGLESS OR MISLEADING”Brookings Institution Economist Gary Burtless: Romney’s Statistic Is “Meaningless, Or Perhaps Misleading.” “While it’s accurate to say the two unemployment figures are in a 2-to-1 ratio today, "it’s a meaningless, or perhaps misleading, statistic for people who are unaware that the youth unemployment rate is always well above the unemployment rate of people 25 and older," said Gary Burtless, a labor and employment economist at the Brookings Institution.” [Tampa Bay Times, PolitiFact, 4/26/2012]Romney Claimed That The Youth Unemployment Rate Is Double The Rate For All Americans Under President Obama, But Data Shows That This Ratio Has Been Largely Consistent Going Back To January 2001. “We downloaded historical BLS unemployment rate data for the two age ranges, then divided the "all" number by the "youth" number. Going back to January 2001, the month President George W. Bush took office, the ratio of the two unemployment rates has been remarkably consistent. Over that 135-month period, the ratio has barely budged, ranging only from 1.9 to 2.4. That’s essentially the same 2-to-1 ratio that the Romney graphic used to criticize Obama’s record on youth jobs. In other words, the two statistics essentially move in lockstep, regardless of whether the broader job market is in a period of modest growth, general stability or precipitous decline.” [Tampa Bay Times, PolitiFact, 4/26/2012]The Average Ratio Of Youth To Total Unemployment Is Slightly Lower Under President Obama Than It Was Under President Bush. “In fact, if you average together all the monthly ratios under Obama, it’s lower than it was under Bush. The average ratio under Obama was 1.9, compared to 2.2 under Bush.” [Tampa Bay Times, PolitiFact, 4/26/2012]THE UNEMPLOYMENT RATE AMONG YOUNG ADULTS HAS DECLINED 2.2 PERCENTAGE POINTS OVER THE LAST YEARThe Unemployment Rate For People Ages 20-24 Is Down 2.2 Percentage Points Over The Last Year. According to the Bureau Of Labor Statistics, the unemployment rate for people ages 20-24 was 14.6 percent in September 2011 and declined to 12.4 percent in September 2012. [Bureau Of Labor Statistics, accessed 10/7/12]UNEMPLOYMENT AMONG RECENT COLLEGE GRADUATES IS LOWER THAN WHEN PRESIDENT OBAMA TOOK OFFICEThe Unemployment Rate Among Recent College Graduates Is Lower Than When President Obama Took Office. In January 2009, the unemployment rate among college graduates ages 1624 was 7.9 percent. In September 2012, the unemployment rate among college graduates ages 16 to 24 was 6.3 percent. [Bureau of Labor Statistics, accessed 9/10/12]The Unemployment Rate Among Recent College Graduates Was 1.8 Percentage Points Lower In September 2012 Than In September 2011.? In September 2011, the unemployment rate among college graduates ages 16-24 was 8.1 percent. In September 2012, the unemployment rate among college graduates ages 16 to 24 was 6.3 percent, declining 1.8 percentage points over the last year. [Bureau of Labor Statistics, accessed 9/10/12]CONTRASTRomney Would Undo Many Of President Obama’s Accomplishments For Young AmericansPRESIDENT OBAMA HAS WORKED TO MAKE COLLEGE MORE AFFORDABLE President Obama Doubled Funding For Pell Grants, Raising The Maximum Pell Award And Increasing The Number Of Recipients To Nearly 10 Million Students. “Thanks in part to these new investments, President Obama has roughly doubled funding for the need-based Pell Grant program, raising the maximum award from $4,731 in fiscal year 2008 to an estimated $5,635 for fiscal year 2013 and increasing the number of recipients by approximately 50 percent to nearly 10 million students.” [Department of Education, Accessed 04/15/12]During The 2011 – 2012 Award Year, 9.7 Million Low And Middle-Income Undergraduates Received Pell Grants With An Average Award Of $3,678. “The Federal Pell Grant Program is the foundation for Federal financial assistance.? It helps ensure financial access to postsecondary education—disbursing $36 billion to 9.7 million low and middle-income undergraduate students during the 2011-2012 award year, with an average award of $3,678.” [Department of Education, Student Financial Administration, Budget Request, FY2013]President Obama’s Extension Of The American Opportunity Tax Credit Is Expected To Provide Relief To 9.4 Million Families With College Students In 2011. [Department of the Treasury Press Release, 1/19/11]PRESIDENT OBAMA SIGNED THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT INTO LAW TO VASTLY EXPAND HEALTH CARE ACCESS AND PROVIDE YOUTH WITH THE SECURITY OF AFFORDABLE, STABLE HEALTH INSURANCEAn Estimated 12.1 Million Young Adults Ages 19 – 29 Will Gain Subsidized Health Care Coverage Once All Of The Affordable Care Act’s Provisions Go Into Effect. “Starting in 2014, of the 14.8 million uninsured adults ages 19 to 29, an estimated 12.1 million could gain subsidized coverage once all the law’s provisions go into effect: 7.2 million may gain coverage under Medicaid and 4.9 million may gain subsidized private coverage through state insurance exchanges.” [The Commonwealth Fund, 05/2011]6.6 Million Young Adults Were Able To Sign Up For Coverage On Their Parent’s Insurance Including 3.1 Million Young Adults Who Would Have Been Uninsured Without The Law.?“6.6. million young adults were able to sign up for coverage on their parents’ plans, including 3.1 million young adults who would have been uninsured without the law.” [White House Blog,?06/27/12]?ROMNEY WOULD SLASH FUNDING FOR STUDENT LOANS AND REPEAL OBAMACARE SAYING THE MARKET WOULD COVER YOUNG AMERICANSIf Cuts Were Applied Across The Board, The Ryan Budget Would Slash Education, Meaning “9.6 Million Students Would See Their Pell Grants Fall By More Than $1,000 In 2014, And, Over The Next Decade, Over One Million Students Would Lose Support Altogether.” “Yesterday, House Republicans released their budget resolution for FY 2013… On top of the roughly $1 trillion in cuts in the Budget Control Act, it would be difficult to overstate the radicalism of the domestic cuts proposed by the House budget resolution. In 2013, it would cut annual non-defense funding by 5 percent. By 2014, the resolution would cut this funding by 19 percent in purely nominal terms… 9.6 million students would see their Pell Grants fall by more than $1000 in 2014, and, over the next decade, over one million students would lose support altogether.” [Jeff Zients, Acting Director of the Office of Management and Budget, , 3/21/12]Romney: “If I’m President, I Will Repeal Obamacare, And I’ll Kill It Dead On Its First Day.” [Romney town hall, Collinsville, IL, 3/17/12]Regarding Whether He Would Allow Children Under 26 To Remain On Their Parents’ Insurance, Romney Said: “It Does Not Require Federal Legislation. It’s Already In The Market.” Troy: “Would you also require that insurers allow children to remain on their parents’ policies until they’re? 26?” Romney: “That’s already in the marketplace. United Health Care and others are offering that product, so it’s voluntary. It does not require federal legislation. It’s already in the market.” [Romney Interview, Toledo Blade, 7/17/12]A Romney Aide Clarified His Position On Coverages For Young Americans And Those With Preexisting Conditions: “In A Competitive Environment, The Marketplace Will Make Available Plans That Include Coverage For What There Is Demand For. He Was Not Proposing A Federal Mandate To Require Insurance Plans To Offer Those Particular Features.” [National Review, 9/9/12]OTHER BACKUPQuotesROMNEY: IT WOULD BE “SILLY” TO SUGGEST I WOULD SOMEHOW BRING JOBS TO MASSACHUSETTSRomney: “I Came In And The Jobs Had Been Just Falling Right Off A Cliff… And If You Are Going To Suggest To Me That Somehow The Day I Got Elected, Somehow Jobs Should Have Immediately Turned Around, Well That Would Be Silly.” Romney: "You guys are bright enough to look at the numbers. I came in and the jobs had been just falling right off a cliff, I came in and they kept falling for 11 months. And then we turned around and we're coming back and that's progress. And if you are going to suggest to me that somehow the day I got elected, somehow jobs should have immediately turned around, well that would be silly. It takes a while to get things turned around. We were in a recession, we were losing jobs every month. We've turned around and since the turnaround we've added 50,000 jobs. That's progress. And there will be some people who try and say, 'well Governor, net-net, you've only added a few thousand jobs since you've been in.' Yeah but I helped stop, I didn't do it alone, the economy is a big part of that, the private sector's what drives that -- up and down -- But we were in free fall for three years. And the last year that I happened to be here, and then we turned it around, as a state, private sector, government sector, turned it around. And now we're adding jobs. We want to keep that going, to the extent we can. We're the, you know, we're one part of that equation, but not the whole equation. A lot of it is outside of our control, it's federal, it's international, it's private sector. But I'm very pleased that over the last a 2, 2 and a half, years we've seen pretty consistent job growth. 50,000 new jobs created, some great companies, we just had, last week, Samsonite announced their headquarters moving here. Companies outside Massachusetts moving in to Massachusetts. That kind of commitment, that kind of decision, says something about what they feel about the future of our state." [Romney Press Conference On Economic Stimulus Vetoes, 6/24/06; MA Archives, GO11 10 Tape No. 13]ROMNEY CALLS HIMSELF “SEVERELY CONSERVATIVE” AND THE “IDEAL CANDIDATE” FOR THE TEA PARTY2012: Romney: “I Was A Severely Conservative Republican Governor.”? [Romney, Conservative Political Action Conference, 2/10/12]?Romney: "Many Tea Party Folks, I Believe, Are Going To Find Me To Be The Ideal Candidate." [Press Availability After Charleston, SC Town Hall, 12/17/11]?THE ROMNEY-RYAN CAMPAIGN LET IT BE KNOWN THAT THEY WON’T LISTEN TO FACT CHECKERSRomney’s Pollster Neil Newhouse: “Fact Checkers Come To This With Their Own Sets Of Thoughts And Beliefs, And We’re Not Going To Let Our Campaign Be Dictated By Fact Checkers.”?[Buzzfeed,?8/28/12]Romney’s Pollster Neil Newhouse “Dismissed” Fact-Checkers, Saying They Have “Jumped The Shark.”?“Mitt Romney’s aides explained with unusual political bluntness today why they are spending heavily — and ignoring media criticism — to air an add accusing President Barack Obama of ‘gutting’ the work requirement for welfare, a marginal political issue since the mid-1990s that Romney pushed back to center stage. ‘Our most effective ad is our welfare ad,’ a top television advertising strategist for Romney, Ashley O'Connor, said at a forum Tuesday hosted by ABCNews and Yahoo! News. ‘It's new information.’ The welfare ad has been the center of intense dispute, with Democrats accusing Romney of unearthing old racial ghosts and Romney pointing out that the Obama Administration has offered states waivers that could, in fact, lighten work requirements in welfare, a central issue in Bill Clinton's 1996 revamping of public assistance. The Washington Post's ‘Fact Checker’ awarded Romney's ad ‘four Pinocchios,’ a measure Romney pollster Neil Newhouse dismissed. ‘Fact checkers come to this with their own sets of thoughts and beliefs, and we’re not going to let our campaign be dictated by fact checkers,’ he said. The fact-checkers — whose institutional rise has been a feature of the cycle — have ‘jumped the shark,’ he added after the panel.” [Buzzfeed,?8/28/12]ROMNEY THINKS IT IS FAIR THAT HE PAID A LOWER TAX RATE THAN AN AMERICAN WHO MADE $50,000Romney Agreed It Was “Fair” That He Made $20 Million But Paid A Lower Tax Rate Than Someone Who Made $50,000, Because That’s “The Right Way To Encourage Economic Growth.”?PELLEY: “Now you made, on your investments, personally, about $20 million last year. And you paid 14% in federal taxes. That's the capital gains rate. Is that fair to the guy who makes $50,000 and paid a higher rate than you did?” ROMNEY: “It is a low rate. And one of the reasons why the capital gains tax rate is lower is because capital has already been taxed once at the corporate level, as high as 35%.” PELLEY: “So you think it is fair.” ROMNEY: “Yeah, I-- I think it's the right way to encourage economic growth-- to get people to invest, to start businesses, to put people to work.” [60 Minutes, 9/23/12]CBPP: THE ROMNEY-RYAN BUDGET “WOULD LIKELY PRODUCE THE LARGEST REDISTRIBUTION OF INCOME FROM THE BOTTOM TO THE TOP IN MODERN U.S. HISTORY”Center On Budget And Policy Priorities’ Robert Greenstein: The Ryan Budget “Would Likely Produce The Largest Redistribution Of Income From The Bottom To The Top In Modern U.S. History.” “The new Ryan budget is a remarkable document — one that, for most of the past half-century, would have been outside the bounds of mainstream discussion due to its extreme nature. In essence, this budget is Robin Hood in reverse — on steroids.? It would likely produce the largest redistribution of income from the bottom to the top in modern U.S. history and likely increase poverty and inequality more than any other budget in recent times (and possibly in the nation’s history).? It also would stand a core principle of the Bowles-Simpson fiscal commission’s report on its head — that policymakers should reduce the deficit in a way that does not increase poverty or widen inequality.” [Robert Greenstein, Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 3/21/12]ROMNEY SAID HE WOULD “WORK TO FIND A WAY TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE OPPORTUNITY” REFERENCING A CRISIS LIKE THE IRAN HOSTAGE SITUATIONRomney: “In The Jimmy Carter Election, The—The Fact That We Had Hostages In—In—In Iran, I Mean That Was All We Talked About” And “If Something Of That Nature Presents Itself, I—I Will Work To Find A Way To Take Advantage Of The Opportunity.” ROMNEY: “I-- I-- I can't-- one of the things that's frustrating me is that-- on a typical day like this when I do three or four events like this, the number of foreign policy questions I get are between zero and one. And the American people (LAUGHTER) are not-- (FEMALE VOICE: UNINTEL) --are not concentrated at all upon China, on Russia, Iran, Iraq. This president's failure to put in place a Status of Forces agreement, allowing 10,000 to 20,000 troops to stay in Iraq? Unthinkable. And-- and yet in-- in that election, in the Jimmy Carter election, the-- the fact that we had hostages in-- in-- in Iran, I mean that was all we talked about. And we had the two helicopters crash in the desert. I mean that's-- that was-- that was the focus. And so him solving that made all the difference in the world. I'm afraid today if you simply got Iran to agree to stand down on their nuclear weapon they'd go-- you know, hold on. It's really-- you know, but-- but, by the way, if something of that nature-- presents itself, I-- I will work to find a way to take advantage of the opportunity.” [Romney Fundraiser, Boca Raton, FL, 5/17/12]Buzzfeed Headline: “Romney Said He’d Take Advantage Of Iran Hostage-Like ‘Opportunity’” [Buzzfeed, 9/18/12]Buzzfeed: “Mitt Romney Was Asked At His May 17 Florida Fundraiser — The Subject Of A Now-Ubiquitous Leaked Video — How He Could ‘Duplicate’ The 1980 Hostage Crisis Scenario, Credited With Defeating Jimmy Carter. In Response, The Presidential Candidate Said: ‘I Mean, If Something Of That Nature Presents Itself I Will Work To Find A Way To Take Advantage Of The Opportunity.’” [Buzzfeed, 9/18/12]ROMNEY SAID HE WOULD HAVE A BETTER SHOT OF WINNING THE ELECTION HAD HIS DAD BEEN BORN OF MEXICAN PARENTSHill:Joking About His Trouble Attracting Female And Hispanic Voters Romney Said That Had His Dad Been Born Of Mexican Parents “I’d Have A Better Shot Of Winning This.” “The video also features Romney candidly discussing some of the problems encountered by his campaign, including trouble attracting female and Hispanic voters. Romney jokes of his father, who was born in Mexico: ‘Had he been born of Mexican parents, I’d have a better shot of winning this.’” [Hill, 9/17/12]Romney: “My Dad, You Probably Know, Was—Was The Governor Of Michigan And Was The Head Of A Car Company, But He Was Born In Mexico. And—Had He Been Born Of Mexican Parents I’d Have A Better Shot Of Winning This.” ROMNEY: ”On the other si-- other hand, I really do see something like Europe. And-- and I think that's the path we're on right now. So that-- that-- that's why I-- I wanna make sure that what I-- what little I'll have left after the campaigns goes to my-- (LAUGHTER) goes to my-- my grandchildren. That's one piece of-- about me that you may not know. The other is just about my-- my heritage. My dad, you probably know, was-- was the governor of Michigan and was the head of a car company, but he was born in Mexico. And-- had he been born of Mexican parents I'd have a better shot of winning this, but he was-- (LAUGHTER) unfortunately born of Americans living in Mexico. They'd lived there for a number of years. And-- I mean I say that jokingly, but it'd be helpful to be-- Latino.” [Romney Fundraiser, Boca Raton, FL, 5/17/12]Romney: “I Say That Jokingly, But It'd Be Helpful To Be—Latino.” [Romney Fundraiser, Boca Raton, FL, 5/17/12]Massachusetts FeesMassachusetts: Romney Raised Fees, Cradle To GraveRomney Increased Fees ON BIRTH CERTIFICATES AND MARRIAGE LICENSESRomney Increased Various Fees Totaling $5 Million – Fees For Birth Certificates And Marriage Licenses Doubled..? “The increase in the ‘emissions compliance fee’ is just one levy among nearly $5 million worth of new fees announced by the Romney administration yesterday. In the next five months, the one-time new-car fee is expected to raise $600,000, according to the administration… Birth certificates and marriage licenses, which could recently be had for just $6, will now cost double.” [Boston Globe, 1/31/03]Romney Increased Fees For Funeral Homes And EmbalmingRomney Changed State Regulations To Increase The Original Fee For A Funeral Director License (Type 2) From $38 To $57. [Massachusetts Register, Permanent Regulations 981 MAREG 95, 8/29/03]2002: The Fee For A Licensed Funeral Director (Type 2) – Original Is Listed At $38 For 239 Board of Registration in Embalming and Funeral Directing - (1). [801 CMR 4.02, Code Of Massachusetts Regulations, 2002 Edition]Romney Changed State Regulations To Increase The Renewal Fee For A Funeral Director License (Type 2) From $56 To $84. [Massachusetts Register, Permanent Regulations 981 MAREG 95, 8/29/03]2002: The Fee For A Licensed Funeral Director (Type 2) – Renewal Is Listed At $56 For 239 Board of Registration in Embalming and Funeral Directing - (2). [801 CMR 4.02, Code Of Massachusetts Regulations, 2002 Edition]Romney Changed State Regulations To Increase The Original Fee For A Registered Embalmer & Licensed Funeral Director (Type 3) From $38 To $57. [Massachusetts Register, Permanent Regulations 981 MAREG 95, 8/29/03]2002: The Fee For A Registered Embalmer & Lic. Funeral Director (Type 3) - Original Is Listed At $56 For 239 Board of Registration in Embalming and Funeral Directing - (3). [801 CMR 4.02, Code Of Massachusetts Regulations, 2002 Edition]Romney Changed State Regulations To Increase The Renewal Fee For A Registered Embalmer & Licensed Funeral Director (Type 3) From $90 To $135. [Massachusetts Register, Permanent Regulations 981 MAREG 95, 8/29/03]2002: The Fee For A Registered Embalmer & Lic. Funeral Director (Type 3) - Renewal Is Listed At $90 For 239 Board of Registration in Embalming and Funeral Directing - (4). [801 CMR 4.02, Code Of Massachusetts Regulations, 2002 Edition]Romney Changed State Regulations To Increase The Original Fee For A Registered Unlicensed Funeral Director (Type 4) From $38 To $57. [Massachusetts Register, Permanent Regulations 981 MAREG 95, 8/29/03]2002: The Fee For A Registered Unlicensed Funeral Director (Type 4) - Original Is Listed At $38 For 239 Board of Registration in Embalming and Funeral Directing - (5). [801 CMR 4.02, Code Of Massachusetts Regulations, 2002 Edition]Romney Changed State Regulations To Increase The Renewal Fee For A Registered Unlicensed Funeral Director (Type 4) From $56 To $84. [Massachusetts Register, Permanent Regulations 981 MAREG 95, 8/29/03]2002: The Fee For A Registered Unlicensed Funeral Director (Type 4) - Renewal Is Listed At $56 For 239 Board of Registration in Embalming and Funeral Directing - (6). [801 CMR 4.02, Code Of Massachusetts Regulations, 2002 Edition]Romney Changed State Regulations To Increase The Original Fee For A Certified Funeral Director (Type 5) From $38 To $57. [Massachusetts Register, Permanent Regulations 981 MAREG 95, 8/29/03]2002: The Fee For A Certified Funeral Director (Type 5) - Original Is Listed At $38 For 239 Board of Registration in Embalming and Funeral Directing - (7). [801 CMR 4.02, Code Of Massachusetts Regulations, 2002 Edition]Romney Changed State Regulations To Increase The Renewal Fee For A Certified Funeral Director (Type 5) From $56 To $84. [Massachusetts Register, Permanent Regulations 981 MAREG 95, 8/29/03]2002: The Fee For A Certified Funeral Director (Type 5) - Renewal Is Listed At $56 For 239 Board of Registration in Embalming and Funeral Directing - (8). [801 CMR 4.02, Code Of Massachusetts Regulations, 2002 Edition]Romney Changed State Regulations To Increase The Original Fee For An Registered Embalmer License (Type 1) From $38 To $57. [Massachusetts Register, Permanent Regulations 981 MAREG 95, 8/29/03]2002: The Fee For A Registered Embalmer (Type 1) - Original Is Listed At $38 For 239 Board of Registration in Embalming and Funeral Directing - (9). [801 CMR 4.02, Code Of Massachusetts Regulations, 2002 Edition]Romney Changed State Regulations To Increase The Renewal Fee For A Registered Embalmer License (Type 1) From $38 To $57. [Massachusetts Register, Permanent Regulations 981 MAREG 95, 8/29/03]2002: The Fee For A Registered Embalmer (Type 1) - Renewal Is Listed At $38 For 239 Board of Registration in Embalming and Funeral Directing - (10). [801 CMR 4.02, Code Of Massachusetts Regulations, 2002 Edition]Romney Changed State Regulations To Increase The Original Fee For An Embalmer Apprentice Registration From $18 To $27. [Massachusetts Register, Permanent Regulations 981 MAREG 95, 8/29/03]2002: The Fee For An Embalmer Apprentice Registration - Original Is Listed At $18 For 239 Board of Registration in Embalming and Funeral Directing - (11). [801 CMR 4.02, Code Of Massachusetts Regulations, 2002 Edition]Romney Changed State Regulations To Increase The Renewal Fee For An Embalmer Apprentice Registration From $18 To $27. [Massachusetts Register, Permanent Regulations 981 MAREG 95, 8/29/03]2002: The Fee For An Embalmer Apprentice Registration - Renewal Is Listed At $18 For 239 Board of Registration in Embalming and Funeral Directing - (12). [801 CMR 4.02, Code Of Massachusetts Regulations, 2002 Edition]Romney Changed State Regulations To Increase The Re-instatement Application Fee In Embalming and Funeral Directing From $113 To $170. [Massachusetts Register, Permanent Regulations 981 MAREG 95, 8/29/03]2002: The Fee For A Re-instatement Application Is Listed At $113 For 239 Board of Registration in Embalming and Funeral Directing - (13). [801 CMR 4.02, Code Of Massachusetts Regulations, 2002 Edition]Romney Changed State Regulations To Increase The Establishment Certificate Fee In Embalming and Funeral Directing From $23 To $35. [Massachusetts Register, Permanent Regulations 981 MAREG 95, 8/29/03]2002: The Fee For An Establishment Certificate Is Listed At $23 For 239 Board of Registration in Embalming and Funeral Directing - (14). [801 CMR 4.02, Code Of Massachusetts Regulations, 2002 Edition]Romney Changed State Regulations To Increase The Establishment Certificate Transfer Fee In Embalming and Funeral Directing From $23 To $35. [Massachusetts Register, Permanent Regulations 981 MAREG 95, 8/29/03]2002: The Fee For An Establishment Certificate Transfer Is Listed At $23 For 239 Board of Registration in Embalming and Funeral Directing - (15). [801 CMR 4.02, Code Of Massachusetts Regulations, 2002 Edition]Romney Increased Cremation Inspections FeesRomney Signed Into Law, An Increase In The Cremation Inspection Fee From $50 To $75. [Chapter 140 Of The Acts Of 2003, Section 18]2002: The Fee For Medical Examination Of A Body For Cremation Is Listed At $50 In Section 14 Of Chapter 38 [Massachusetts General Laws (MGL) Chapter 38, Section 14, Assessed 3/7/12]Romney Raised Fees For Care Of Burial LotsRomney Signed An Increase In The Fee At The Registry Of Probate For Care Of Burial Lot From $42 To $60. [Chapter 26 Of The Acts Of 2003, Section 507]2002: The Fee For Care Of Burial Lot Is Listed At $42 In Section 40 Of Chapter 262. [Massachusetts General Laws (MGL) Chapter 262, Section 40, - Line 18, Assessed 3/7/12]Other FeesROMNEY INCREASED FEES FOR DRIVERS LICENSESRomney Changed State Regulations To Increase The Fee For A “Class A” Drivers License From $52.50 To $60. [Massachusetts Register, Permanent Regulations 976 MAREG 93, 6/20/03]2002: The License Fee For A Drivers License – Class A Is Listed At $52.50 For 540 Registry Of Motor Vehicles – (1)(a). [801 CMR 4.02, Code Of Massachusetts Regulations, 2002 Edition]Romney Changed State Regulations To Increase The Fee For A “Class B” Drivers License From $40 To $50. [Massachusetts Register, Permanent Regulations 976 MAREG 93, 6/20/03]2002: The License Fee For A Drivers License – Class B Is Listed At $40 For 540 Registry Of Motor Vehicles – (1)(b). [801 CMR 4.02, Code Of Massachusetts Regulations, 2002 Edition]Romney Changed State Regulations To Increase The Fee For A “Class C” Drivers License From $33.75 To $40. [Massachusetts Register, Permanent Regulations 976 MAREG 93, 6/20/03]2002: The License Fee For A Drivers License – Class C Is Listed At $33.75 For 540 Registry Of Motor Vehicles – (1)(c). [801 CMR 4.02, Code Of Massachusetts Regulations, 2002 Edition]Romney Changed State Regulations To Increase The Fee For A Motorcycle “Class M” Drivers License From $33.75 To $40. [Massachusetts Register, Permanent Regulations 976 MAREG 93, 6/20/03]2002: The License Fee For A Drivers License – Motorcycle (Class M) Is Listed At $33.75 For 540 Registry Of Motor Vehicles – (1)(e). [801 CMR 4.02, Code Of Massachusetts Regulations, 2002 Edition]Romney Changed State Regulations To Increase The Fee For A Duplicate Drivers License From $15 To $20. [Massachusetts Register, Permanent Regulations 976 MAREG 93, 6/20/03]2002: The License Fee For A Duplicate License Is Listed At $15 For 540 Registry Of Motor Vehicles – (3). [801 CMR 4.02, Code Of Massachusetts Regulations, 2002 Edition]Romney Changed State Regulations To Increase The Fee For A Learner’s Permit Application From $15 To $30. [Massachusetts Register, Permanent Regulations 976 MAREG 93, 6/20/03]2002: The License Fee For A Learner’s Permit Application Is Listed At $15 For 540 Registry Of Motor Vehicles – (5). [801 CMR 4.02, Code Of Massachusetts Regulations, 2002 Edition]ROMNEY INCREASED FEES FOR NURSESRomney Changed State Regulations To Increase The Application/Original Fee For A Nursing Registration From $75 To $100. [Massachusetts Register, Permanent Regulations 981 MAREG 95, 8/29/03]2002: The Fee For A Registered Nurse – Application/Original Is Listed At $75 For 244 Board of Registration of Nursing - (1). [801 CMR 4.02, Code Of Massachusetts Regulations, 2002 Edition]Romney Changed State Regulations To Increase The Renewal Fee For A Nursing Registration From $60 To $80. [Massachusetts Register, Permanent Regulations 981 MAREG 95, 8/29/03]2002: The Fee For A Registered Nurse – Renewal Is Listed At $60 For 244 Board of Registration of Nursing - (2). [801 CMR 4.02, Code Of Massachusetts Regulations, 2002 Edition]Romney Changed State Regulations To Increase The Application/Original Fee For A Licensed Practical Nurse From $75 To $100. [Massachusetts Register, Permanent Regulations 981 MAREG 95, 8/29/03]2002: The Fee For A Licensed Practical Nurse – Application/Original Is Listed At $75 For 244 Board of Registration of Nursing - (3). [801 CMR 4.02, Code Of Massachusetts Regulations, 2002 Edition]Romney Changed State Regulations To Increase The Renewal Fee For A Licensed Practical Nurse From $60 To $80. [Massachusetts Register, Permanent Regulations 981 MAREG 95, 8/29/03]2002: The Fee For A Licensed Practical Nurse – Renewal Is Listed At $60 For 244 Board of Registration of Nursing - (4). [801 CMR 4.02, Code Of Massachusetts Regulations, 2002 Edition]ROMNEY INCREASED FEES FOR BARBERSRomney Changed State Regulations To Increase The Master Barber License Application Fee From $38 To $57. [Massachusetts Register, Permanent Regulations 981 MAREG 95, 8/29/03]2002: The Fee For A Master Barber License - Application Is Listed At $38 For 232 Board Of Registration Of Barbers - (1). [801 CMR 4.02, Code Of Massachusetts Regulations, 2002 Edition]Romney Changed State Regulations To Increase The Fee For An Original Master Barber License From $45 To $68. [Massachusetts Register, Permanent Regulations 981 MAREG 95, 8/29/03]2002: The Fee For A Master Barber License - Original Is Listed At $45 For 232 Board Of Registration Of Barbers - (2). [801 CMR 4.02, Code Of Massachusetts Regulations, 2002 Edition]Romney Changed State Regulations To Increase The Renewal Fee For A Barber License From $45 To $68. [Massachusetts Register, Permanent Regulations 981 MAREG 95, 8/29/03]2002: The Fee For A Master Barber License - Renewal Is Listed At $45 For 232 Board Of Registration Of Barbers - (3). [801 CMR 4.02, Code Of Massachusetts Regulations, 2002 Edition]Romney Changed State Regulations To Increase The Re-examination Fee For A Barber License From $75 To $113. [Massachusetts Register, Permanent Regulations 981 MAREG 95, 8/29/03]2002: The Fee For A Master Barber Re-examination Is Listed At $75 For 232 Board Of Registration Of Barbers - (4). [801 CMR 4.02, Code Of Massachusetts Regulations, 2002 Edition]Romney Changed State Regulations To Increase The Original Registration Fee For A Barber School From $300 To $450. [Massachusetts Register, Permanent Regulations 981 MAREG 95, 8/29/03]2002: The Fee For A Barber School Registration - Original Is Listed At $300 For 232 Board Of Registration Of Barbers - (5). [801 CMR 4.02, Code Of Massachusetts Regulations, 2002 Edition]Romney Changed State Regulations To Increase The Barber School Renewal Fee From $150 To $225. [Massachusetts Register, Permanent Regulations 981 MAREG 95, 8/29/03]2002: The Fee For A Barber School Renewal Is Listed At $150 For 232 Board Of Registration Of Barbers - (6). [801 CMR 4.02, Code Of Massachusetts Regulations, 2002 Edition]Romney Changed State Regulations To Increase The Original Registration Fee For A Barber Instructor From $113 To $170. [Massachusetts Register, Permanent Regulations 981 MAREG 95, 8/29/03]2002: The Fee For A Barber Instructor Registration - Application/Original Is Listed At $113 For 232 Board Of Registration Of Barbers - (7). [801 CMR 4.02, Code Of Massachusetts Regulations, 2002 Edition]Romney Changed State Regulations To Increase The Renewal Fee For A Barber Instructor From $56 To $84. [Massachusetts Register, Permanent Regulations 981 MAREG 95, 8/29/03]2002: The Fee For A Barber Instructor Registration – Renewal Is Listed At $56 For 232 Board Of Registration Of Barbers - (8). [801 CMR 4.02, Code Of Massachusetts Regulations, 2002 Edition]Romney Changed State Regulations To Increase The Original Fee For An Apprentice Barber License From $11 To $17. [Massachusetts Register, Permanent Regulations 981 MAREG 95, 8/29/03]2002: The Fee For An Apprentice - Application/Original Is Listed At $11 For 232 Board Of Registration Of Barbers - (9). [801 CMR 4.02, Code Of Massachusetts Regulations, 2002 Edition]Romney Changed State Regulations To Increase The Renewal Fee For An Apprentice Barber License From $23 To $35. [Massachusetts Register, Permanent Regulations 981 MAREG 95, 8/29/03]2002: The Fee For An Apprentice - Renewal Is Listed At $23 For 232 Board Of Registration Of Barbers - (10). [801 CMR 4.02, Code Of Massachusetts Regulations, 2002 Edition]Romney Changed State Regulations To Increase The Original Fee For An Alien Apprentice Exam And Apprentice Re-examination From $75 To $113. [Massachusetts Register, Permanent Regulations 981 MAREG 95, 8/29/03]2002: The Fee For An Alien Apprentice Exam and Apprentice Re-examination Is Listed At $75 For 232 Board Of Registration Of Barbers - (11). [801 CMR 4.02, Code Of Massachusetts Regulations, 2002 Edition]Romney Changed State Regulations To Increase The Original Registration Fee For A Barber Shop From $75 To $113. [Massachusetts Register, Permanent Regulations 981 MAREG 95, 8/29/03]2002: The Fee For A Barber Shop - Original Registration Is Listed At $75 For 232 Board Of Registration Of Barbers - (12). [801 CMR 4.02, Code Of Massachusetts Regulations, 2002 Edition]Romney Changed State Regulations To Increase The Renewal Fee For A Barber Shop From $45 To $68. [Massachusetts Register, Permanent Regulations 981 MAREG 95, 8/29/03]2002: The Fee For A Barber Shop Renewal Is Listed At $45 For 232 Board Of Registration Of Barbers - (13). [801 CMR 4.02, Code Of Massachusetts Regulations, 2002 Edition]Romney Changed State Regulations To Increase The Fee For The Endorsement Of An Apprentice & Master Barber License From $150 To $225. [Massachusetts Register, Permanent Regulations 981 MAREG 95, 8/29/03]2002: The Fee For An Endorsement - Apprentice & Master Barber Licenses Is Listed At $150 For 232 Board Of Registration Of Barbers - (14). [801 CMR 4.02, Code Of Massachusetts Regulations, 2002 Edition]Romney Changed State Regulations To Increase The Fee For An Out-Of-State Re-examiniation For A Barber Registration From $75 To $113. [Massachusetts Register, Permanent Regulations 981 MAREG 95, 8/29/03]2002: The Fee For An Out-of-State Re-examination Registration Is Listed At $75 For 232 Board Of Registration Of Barbers - (15). [801 CMR 4.02, Code Of Massachusetts Regulations, 2002 Edition]ROMNEY SIGNED INCREASES FOR BUYING A HOME WITH MORTGAGE REGISTRATION FEESRomney Signed An Increase In The Fee At The Registry Of Deeds For Filing And Registering A Mortgage From $30 To $150. [Chapter 4 Of The Acts Of 2003, Section 57]2002: The Fee For Filing And Registering A Mortgage Is Listed At $30 In Section 39 Of Chapter 262. [Massachusetts General Laws (MGL) Chapter 262, Section 39, Line 22, Assessed 3/7/12]Romney Signed An Increase In The Fee At The Registry Of Deeds For Recording A Mortgage From $20 To $150. [Chapter 4 Of The Acts Of 2003, Section 51]2002: The Fee For Recording A Mortgage Is Listed At $20 In Section 38 Of Chapter 262. [Massachusetts General Laws (MGL) Chapter 262, Section 38, Line 4, Assessed 3/7/12]ROMNEY INCREASED FEES ON SELLING MILKRomney Changed State Regulations To Increase The Fee For A Milk Dealer License From $5 To $10. [Massachusetts Register, Permanent Regulations, 975 MAREG 97, 6/06/03]2002: The Fee For Milk Dealer License Is Listed At $5 For 330 Department of Food and Agriculture – (8). [801 CMR 4.02, Code Of Massachusetts Regulations, 2002 Edition]Romney Changed State Regulations To Increase The Fee For A Milk Hauler/Sampler License From $10 To $20. [Massachusetts Register, Permanent Regulations, 975 MAREG 97, 6/06/03]2002: The Fee For Milk Hauler/Sampler License Is Listed At $10 For 330 Department of Food and Agriculture – (9). [801 CMR 4.02, Code Of Massachusetts Regulations, 2002 Edition]Romney Changed State Regulations To Further Increase The License Fee For A Milk Dealer From $10 To $25 For Less Than 800 lbs. [Massachusetts Register, Permanent Regulations 976 MAREG 93, 6/20/03]June 6, 2003: The Fee For A Milk Dealer License Is Listed At $10 For 330 Department Of Food And Agriculture – (8). Massachusetts Register, Permanent Regulations, 975 MAREG 97, 6/06/03.June 6, 2003: Romney Previously Changed State Regulations To Increase The Fee A Milk Dealer License From $5 To $10. [ Massachusetts Register, Permanent Regulations, 975 MAREG 97, 6/06/03.Romney Changed State Regulations To Further Increase The Fee For A Milk Dealer License From $10 To $3.50 For Every 100 lbs. Over 800 Lbs. (Minimum $28). [Massachusetts Register, Permanent Regulations 976 MAREG 93, 6/20/03]June 6, 2003: The Fee For A Milk Dealer License Is Listed At $10 For 330 Department Of Food And Agriculture – (8). Massachusetts Register, Permanent Regulations, 975 MAREG 97, 6/06/03.June 6, 2003: Romney Previously Changed State Regulations To Increase The Fee A Milk Dealer License From $5 To $10. [ Massachusetts Register, Permanent Regulations, 975 MAREG 97, 6/06/03.ROMNEY INCREASED THE FEE FOR DELIVERING PETROLEUM PRODUCTS BY 400%Romney Changed State Regulations To Increase The Delivery Fee Of Petroleum Products From $0.5 Cents Per Gallon To $2.5 Cents Per Gallon. [Massachusetts Register, Permanent Regulations, 975 MAREG 93, 6/06/03]February, 2003: The Delivery Fee Of Petroleum Products Is Listed At $50 Per 10,000 Gallon (.5 Cents Per Gallon) For 503 Department Of Revenue - (4.03). [: 503 CMR 4.03, Massachusetts Register, Permanent Regulations, Department Of Revenue Letter To Massachusetts Distributors, 3/13/03. ROMNEY INCREASED FEES ON THE BLIND?Romney Proposed And Signed The Creation Of A New $15 Fee For An Identification Card Issued By The Massachusetts Commission For The Blind. [Governor’s Budget Recommendations Section 10& Chapter 26 Of The Acts Of 2003, Section 7]?2002: No Fee Listed For An Identification Card In Section 135 Of Chapter 6. [Massachusetts General Laws (MGL) Chapter 6, Section 135. Assessed 3/7/12]?Romney Proposed And Signed The Creation Of A New $15 Renewal Fee For An Identification Card Issued By The Massachusetts Commission For The Blind. [Governor’s Budget Recommendations Section 10& Chapter 26 Of The Acts Of 2003, Section 7]?2002: No Renewal Fee Listed In Section 135 Of Chapter 6. [Massachusetts General Laws (MGL) Chapter 6, Section 135. Assessed 3/7/12]?Romney Proposed And Signed The Creation Of A New $10 Fee For A Duplicate Identification Card Issued By The Massachusetts Commission For The Blind. [Governor’s Budget Recommendations Section 10& Chapter 26 Of The Acts Of 2003, Section 7]?2002: No Fee Listed For A Duplicate Identification Card In Section 135 Of Chapter 6. [Massachusetts General Laws (MGL) Chapter 6, Section 135. Assessed 3/7/12]?Romney Proposed And Signed The Creation Of A New $10 Fee For A “Certificate Of Blindness” Issued By The Massachusetts Commission For The Blind. [Governor’s Budget Recommendations Section 11& Chapter 26 Of The Acts Of 2003, Section 8]?2002: No Fee Listed For A Certificate Of Blindness In Section 136 Of Chapter 6. [Massachusetts General Laws (MGL) Chapter 6, Section 135. Assessed 3/7/12]ROMNEY PROPOSED A NEW FEE FOR TUBERCULOSIS TEST Romney Proposed Creating A New $50 Fee For All Initial Tuberculosis Test At The Department Of Public Health. [Boston Globe, 2/28/03]Romney Proposed Creating An Additional $400 Fee At The Department Of Public Health If One's Tuberculosis Test Result Is Positive And Additional Testing Is Required. [Boston Globe, 2/28/03]19 Tax Cuts In MassachusettsRomney’s “19 Tax Cuts” INCLUDE “MINOR BREAKS LIKE A SALES-TAX HOLIDAY”…Boston Globe Columnist Steve Syre: Romney’s Claim That He Cut Taxes 19 Times As Governor Includes “Minor Breaks Like A Sales-Tax Holiday.” From Steve Syre, Boston Globe business columnist: “One question about Mitt Romney and taxes has become a staple on the presidential campaign trail. Either he raised them or lowered them as governor of Massachusetts, depending on who is counting. Romney insists he cut taxes 19 times as governor, a list that includes significant reductions and minor breaks like a sales-tax holiday.” [Steve Syre, Boston Globe, 2/28/12]…And Cuts Designed For Hollywood, Luring Major Corporations And the richRomney “Signed Legislation” That Exempted Taxpayers From Retroactively Paying Taxes After A Supreme Court Found “That A 2002 State Capital Gains Tax Increase Violated The Massachusetts Constitution Because It Took Effect May 1, Part Way Through The Year.” “Governor Mitt Romney today signed legislation that prevents thousands of Massachusetts taxpayers from having to pay retroactive taxes on financial transactions that occurred more than three years ago... The change in the law was made necessary by an April 26, 2005 decision of the Supreme Judicial Court, which found that a 2002 state capital gains tax increase violated the Massachusetts Constitution because it took effect May 1, part way through the year.” [Press Release, Mitt Romney, 12/8/05]The State Of Massachusetts Was Required To Refund Up To $275 Million To Taxpayers Who “Paid The Higher Capital Gains Tax Rate In The Last Eight Months Of 2002. “With the change in date, the state is required to refund between $225 million and $275 million to the estimated 157,000 taxpayers who paid the higher capital gains tax rate in the last eight months of 2002.” [Press Release, Mitt Romney, 12/8/05]“About $78 Million Of That Is Owed By Just 278 Wealthy People, Who Would Pay An Average Of $281,000 Each.” [Associated Press, 11/18/05]The State Of Massachusetts Lured Bristol-Myers Squibb To Build A $660 Million Dollar Facility In Part By Offering “A Change To The State's Investment Tax Credit Rules To Let The Company Claim A Refund For 5 Percent Of Its Investment In The Facility.” “Global drug maker Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. has decided to build a $660 million manufacturing plant on the former Fort Devens US Army base, the company said yesterday, bringing as many as 550 jobs to Massachusetts and marking a milestone in the state's efforts to attract new businesses…To land Bristol-Myers Squibb, the state offered the company more than $60 million in spending and incentives, including $34 million to build new waste treatment and sewage facilities on the Devens site, and a change to the state's investment tax credit rules to let the company claim a refund for 5 percent of its investment in the facility.” [Boston Globe, 6/2/06]Boston Globe: The Bristol-Myers Squibb Special Investment Tax Credit “Could Cost The State As Much As $33 Million.” “According to the company's current building plan, that could cost the state as much as $33 million. Both measures depend on legislation that State House leaders have promised to introduce, and Governor Mitt Romney has promised to sign, according to state officials.”? [Boston Globe, 6/2/06]Boston Globe: Governor Romney Signed Legislation “Giving Tax Breaks To Hollywood.” “So far, giving tax breaks to Hollywood has faced relatively little opposition. Former Governor Mitt Romney signed the initial tax incentives into law in 2005, in an effort to compete with Rhode Island, New York, and other states that already offer an array of tax breaks to attract major films.” [Boston Globe, 3/27/08]Massachusetts’s Film Packaged “Which Provides Up To $7 Million In Tax Credits For A Single Production - Makes It Among The Five Most Generous States In The Country.” “Most states already offer some incentives to lure film crews to shoot within their borders. However, the size and extent of the Bay State's new film package - which provides up to $7 million in tax credits for a single production - makes it among the five most generous states in the country.” [Patriot Ledger, 12/3/05]FY2006: The Film Tax Credit Generated $19.1 Million In Tax Credits. [Department Of Revenue, A Report on the Massachusetts Film Industry Tax Incentives, November 2011]for the middle class? romney relied on one-time tax cuts…2004: Romney Approved A 2003 Stimulus Package That Included A One Day Sales Tax Holiday For Purchases Up To $2,500. “Governor Mitt Romney today teamed up with State Senator Jack Hart and the Retailers Association of Massachusetts to promote the Commonwealth’s first-ever sales tax holiday this Saturday, August 14. During a visit to the South Bay Mall, Romney encouraged shoppers to visit their favorite stores this weekend to take advantage of a day of tax-free shopping… Saturday’s sales tax holiday, approved by Romney as part of last year’s economic stimulus package, exempts individuals from paying the state’s five percent sales tax on purchases up to $2,500. Motor vehicles, boats, meals and utility payments are not included in the holiday and items priced higher than $2,500 will still carry the sales tax.” [Press Release, Governor Romney, 8/11/04]2005: Romney Signed Legislation Created A Two Day Sales Tax Holiday On Purchases Up To $2,500. “After holding its first-ever sales tax holiday last year, Massachusetts will make it a two-day event this year on the weekend of Aug. 13 and 14. ‘We're sending taxes in Massachusetts on a little summer vacation,’ Governor Mitt Romney said in a statement yesterday after signing a tax holiday bill into law. The law exempts shoppers from paying the state's 5 percent sales tax on purchases up to $2,500.” [Boston Globe, 7/23/05]Romney Signed Legislation Creating A One Year Personal Income Tax Deduction, And A One-Time Tax Credit For Homeowners Who Purchase Energy-Efficient Heating Products Corporate Excise Tax Credit For Businesses That Purchase Solar Water Heating Systems. “Governor Mitt Romney today signed legislation that softens the burden of high heating costs and provides incentives to consumers and businesses to use energy efficiently… Allows a personal income tax deduction of up to $800 for home heating costs incurred between November 1, 2005 and March 31, 2006. To qualify, taxpayers must earn less than $50,000 if they are single filers, or not more than $75,000 if filing jointly. Provides a one-time tax credit for homeowners who purchase energy-efficient heating products equal to 30% of the cost of the products up to $600 for a single family home and $1000 for a multi-family home…Provides a one-time corporate excise tax credit to businesses that purchase solar water heating systems equal to 15%, or $300 – whichever is less – of the cost to purchase and install the systems.” [Press Release, Governor Romney, 11/22/05]many of romney’s “tax cuts” were merely extensions of pre-existing tax cutsRomney Signed An Economic Stimulus Package That Included “Making The Investment Tax Credit Permanent.” “Governor Mitt Romney today signed into law the economic stimulus package and the supplemental spending bill… Making the Investment Tax Credit permanent.” [Press Release, Governor Romney, 11/26/03]Massachusetts’ Investment Tax Credit Was Over 30 Years Old. “After more than 30 years, Massachusetts businesses appear to have won a hard-fought battle to make permanent the investment tax credit on capital investments.” [Boston Business Journal, 11/28/03]A 2006 Economic Stimulus Package Extended The Brownfields Tax Credit To 2011. “Downing pointed to a recently passed economic stimulus package, which includes several provisions that promote and foster sustainable development -- specifically, $30 million for the Brownfields Redevelopment Fund, extension of the brownfields tax credit to 2011, and an increased cap for the historic tax credit.” [Berkshire Eagle, 7/8/06]The Brownfields Tax Credit Was Due To Expire In 2005. “At the same time, the bill would make the Brownfields Tax Credit, due to expire in 2005, permanent, and would allow both nonprofit and for-profit developers to use it, or assign it to other parties.” [Patriot Ledger, 5/11/05]Romney Signed Legislation That Extended A Low-Income Tax Credit For Five More Years. “The legislation signed yesterday also extends a low-income housing tax credit for five years and includes $300 million in housing bond authorizations.” [Patriot Ledger, 8/11/04]Romney Created A Tax Cut, Only To Veto An Expansion Of It Later Calling It “Wasteful Spending”Romney Listed “Historic Rehabilitation Tax Credit As One Of His 19 Tax Cuts. “Governor Romney, The Historic Rehabilitation Tax Credit Was Created Which Provides A Tax Credit For The Renovation Of Historic Buildings.” [Mitt Romney, Press Release, 2/10/12]Romney Backed The Approval Of A “Historic Rehabilitation Tax Credit” Program “Which Grants 20 Percent Tax Breaks To Developers Who Meet Certain Requirements In Their Plans To Renovate Historic Buildings.” “The Burwick building was one of 13 projects statewide that were given consideration for the Massachusetts Historic Rehabilitation Tax Credit program, which grants 20 percent tax breaks to developers who meet certain requirements in their plans to renovate historic buildings…For example, there was surprise when Gov. Mitt Romney, looking for ways to ease Massachusetts' financial plight, went along with the state Legislature's approval of the tax credit. Statehouse observers, however, said they thought Mr. Romney backed the program because of his enthusiasm for affordable housing projects.” [Telegram & Gazette, 6/15/04]Governor Romney Vetoed An “Upgrade” To The Massachusetts Historic Rehabilitation Tax Credit Program Who Said He “Considered It Wasteful Spending.” “The upgrade to the Massachusetts Historic Rehabilitation Tax Credit program-which got the thumbs up by state lawmakers and the thumbs down by Governor Mitt Romney, is back up again. ‘It's now the law,’ said lobbyist Paul Pezzella of ADS Ventures, Inc., at 100 Cambridge Street, who shepherded the bill through the legislature on behalf of Preservation Massachusetts. The bill was part of the total economic stimulus bill that was passed last month by the state legislature, only to be vetoed by Romney who said at the time he considered it wasteful spending.” [Beacon Hill Times, 7/25/06]Romney Claimed A Veto Of A Tax Was A “Cut”Romney Said He Would Veto A $36 Million Prescription Tax Whose Burden He Said Would Unfairly “Fall On Senior Citizens; “I Cannot Justify It.” “Governor Mitt Romney will veto a $36 million prescription tax this week that he said unfairly targets seniors, potentially prolonging the political and legal wrangling over the measure as he seeks to trim the Legislature's budget. ‘The burden of this tax overwhelmingly falls on senior citizens, and I cannot justify it,’ the governor said Friday night. Romney acknowledged that the veto, which his press secretary, Shawn Feddeman, said would occur this week, would eliminate a large source of potential revenue for the state, but said he would find other means of balancing the $23 billion budget.” [Boston Globe, 6/29/03]The Massachusetts Legislature “Has Let Governor Mitt Romney’s Veto Of A Prescription Tax Stand. “The Legislature has let Governor Mitt Romney's veto of a prescription tax stand, effectively ending a yearlong struggle over a state bid to help finance Medicaid by assessing a tax on each non-Medicaid prescription filled in the state. The pharmacy tax was signed into law last year by Acting Governor Jane Swift; when a court ruled it invalid earlier this year, Romney vetoed a legislative attempt in this year's budget to breathe new life into the tax.” [Boston Globe, 7/12/03]romney took credit for an automatic Rise In The PErsonal Exemption That Saved Tax Payers $60 MillionRomney Announced The Personal Exemption Rose By $275, From $3,300 To $3,575. “Every taxpayer will benefit from an increase in the personal exemption, made possible by the Commonwealth’s improving economy. The exemption for an individual filer is now $3,575, $5,525 for the head of household filer, and $7,150 for joint filers.” [Press Release, Governor Romney, 1/24/06]Lawmakers “Agreed To Create Automatic Triggers That Would Restart The Cut As The Economy Improved” And “After Two Years Of Slow But Steady Improvement In The Economy, The First Triggers Is Set To Kick In.” “The cut stems from 2002, when the Democrat-led Legislature froze a voter approved rollback in the income tax rate at 5.3 percent in the face of a $2 billion budget gap. The tax cut was supposed to bring the rate down from 5.95 percent to 5 percent over three years.?? As they froze the rate, lawmakers agreed to create automatic "triggers" that would restart the cut as the economy improved. After nearly two years of slow but steady improvement in the economy, the first of the triggers is set to kick in. Democrats said the small tax cut shows the plan is working. But critics, including Republican Gov. Mitt Romney, said lawmakers should immediately drop the income tax rate to 5 percent as approved by voters.” [Associated Press, 12/6/04]State Income Taxes Were Set To “Inch Downwards Next Year As The Massachusetts Economy Continued To Pick Up Speed” Due To A Rise In The Personal Exemption “State income taxes will inch downward next year as the Massachusetts economy continues to pick up steam, state revenue officials and lawmakers said Monday. The tax cut is both automatic and tiny - just $15 for individuals and $29 for couples. The state stands to lose about $60 million annually when the full effect of the tax cut is felt in the form of a slight increase in the personal exemption.” [Associated Press, 12/6/04]Senator Therese Murray: “We Are Having A Tax Cut Of $60 Million In Personal Exemptions This Year No Matter What.” “Senate Ways and Means Committee Chairwoman Therese Murray, D-Plymouth, said while the income tax rate may not change, ‘We are having a tax cut of $60 million in personal exemptions this year no matter what.’” [Telegram & Gazette, 3/15/05]What’s that leave of romney’s record? Expanded Tax Cuts On Popular Programs….Romney Signed Legislation “To Lower The Property Tax Burden For Massachusetts Senior Citizens. “Governor Mitt Romney today signed legislation to lower the property tax burden for Massachusetts senior citizens, which he said will help more seniors stay in their homes.” [Press Release, Governor Romney, 11/20/05]Romney Signed A Stimulus Package That Would Expand A Tax Credit For Research And Development, Costing The State $8 Million. “It also expands a tax credit for research and development that will cost $8 million, according to a summary of the bill.” [Boston Globe, 11/24/03]Romney Signed Legislation “Easing The Tax Burden For Disabled Veterans And The Families Of Those Killed Or Missing In Action.” “Disabled veterans can now enjoy greater tax benefits in Massachusetts. Gov. Mitt Romney signed a bill on Monday easing the tax burden for disabled veterans and the families of those killed or missing in action.” [Associated Press, 8/14/06]? ….and programs created that barley made a dent in the debt burdenMassachusetts Passed A Tax Credit Called The Jobs Incentive Payment For Life Science And Medical Device Manufacturing Companies That Create Jobs In Massachusetts. “As the Legislature debates ways to further stimulate the Massachusetts economy, Gov. Mitt Romney today urged life sciences and medical device manufacturing companies to apply for the Jobs Incentive Payment (JIP) program that was part of the last economic stimulus bill. The manufacturing tax credit is designed for life sciences and medical device manufacturing firms… Under the program, companies that create 10 or more jobs in Massachusetts during a calendar year receive a cash payment equal to half the income tax rate for the salaries paid to the newly hired workers.” [Press Release, Governor Mitt Romney, 8/8/05]2005: Massachusetts’ Biotechnology Tax Credit “Has Helped Only Three Companies That Are Being Rewarded For Creating Less Than 40 New Jobs” After Half A Year Costing The State $10,937, Not The $1 Million State Officials Anticipated. “Halfway through its first year, a tax credit program aimed at spurring biotech manufacturers to add jobs in the state has helped only three companies that are being rewarded for creating less than 40 new jobs. State officials initially anticipated that the benefit would cost the state up to $1 million in the first year. However, the midyear price tag, according to a spokesman for Gov. Mitt Romney's administration, totals $10,937 for the 38 jobs that have been created” [Patriot Ledger, 8/9/05]Governor Romney “Approved” An Outside Portion Of The Budget That Allowed Commuters To Deduct Up To $750 A Year From Their State Income Taxes. “The Governor approved another outside section that allows commuters who spend more than $150 a year on tolls or MBTA passes to deduct up to $750 a year in commuting expenses from their state income taxes. Joint filers could claim up to $1,500.” [Romney Press Release, 7/8/06]Massachusetts FY08 Department Of Revenue Report Estimated The Cost Of The Program To Be $4.0 Million. [Department of Revenue, FY 2008 Tax Expenditure Budget, February 2007] Massachusetts Passed Legislation That Allowed “Medical Device Manufacturers Claim A 100 Percent Credit For User Fee Payments Made To The U.S. Food And Drug Administration Once A Product Is Submitted For Review.” “The provision in the economic stimulus law lets Massachusetts medical device manufacturers claim a 100 percent credit for user fee payments made to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration once a product is submitted for review, assuming the payment covers a device developed or to be manufactured in Massachusetts. Companies pay the fee in two tiers: $3,800 for an item that isn't an invasive device and resembles products already on the market, and $400,000 for invasive devices with new technology.”? [Boston Business Journal, 7/17/06]2006 Economic Package “Would…Set Aside” “$2 Million For Tax Credits For Medical Device Companies.” “Among other things, the bill would also set aside $5 million for a venture development center at UMass-Boston that would be linked to the Longwood medical community, $35 million to help pay for a nanotech center at UMass-Lowell and $2 million for tax credits for medical device companies.” [Patriot Ledger, 6/17/06]102 Times Romney & Ryan Dodged On Deductions & LoopholesMITT ROMNEYWhen Pointed Out That The Harvard Study Romney Cited To Back Up His Economic Plan Says That To Make His Math Work, Romney Must “Eliminate The Home Mortgage, Charity, And State And Local Tax Deductions For Everyone Earning Over $100,000,” Romney Said: “No, That’s Not What I Propose.” GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: “You know Democrats are going to be wanting to get much more detail from you on how you’re going to pay for your tax cuts. We’ve heard that at the Democratic Convention. President Clinton said your math doesn’t work. I know you dispute what President Clinton said and what the Democrats that say that you’re going to have a $2,000 tax hike on middleclass families. I know you dispute that. You cite your own studies. But one of the studies you cite by Martin Feldstein at Harvard shows that to make your math work, it could work, if you eliminate the home mortgage, charity, and state and local tax deductions for everyone earning over $100,000. Is that what you propose?” MITT ROMNEY: “No, that’s not what I propose. And, of course, part of my plan is to stimulate economic growth. The biggest source of getting the country to a balanced budget is not by raising taxes or by cutting spending. It’s by encouraging the growth of the economy. So my tax plan is to encourage investment in growth in America, more jobs, that means more people paying taxes. So that’s a big component of what allows us to get to a balanced budget.” [ABC News, This Week, 9/13/12]Romney Said “We Can Lower Our Rates” When Asked About Getting Rid Of Deductions For Those Earning More Than $100,000. GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: “But his study, which you’ve cited, says it can only work if you take away those deductions for everyone earning more than $100,000.” MITT ROMNEY: “Well, it doesn’t necessarily show the same growth that we’re anticipating. And I haven’t seen his precise study. But I can tell you that we can lower our rates–“ GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: “Well, you cited the study, though.” MITT ROMNEY: “Well, I said that there are five different studies that point out that we can get to a balanced budget without raising taxes on middle income people. Let me tell you, George, the fundamentals of my tax policy are these. Number one, reduce tax burdens on middle-income people. So no one can say my plan is going to raise taxes on middle-income people, because principle number one is keep the burden down on middle-income taxpayers.” [ABC News, This Week, 9/13/12]Romney Said He Would “Simplify The Code.” GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: “Is $100,000 middle income?” MITT ROMNEY: “No, middle income is $200,000 to $250,000 and less. So number one, don’t reduce– or excuse me, don’t raise taxes on middle-income people, lower them. Number two, don’t reduce the share of taxes paid by the wealthiest. The top 5% will still pay the same share of taxes they pay today. That’s principle one, principle two. Principle three is create incentives for growth, make it easier for businesses to start and to add jobs. And finally, simplify the code, make it easier for people to pay their taxes than the way they have to now.” [ABC News, This Week, 9/13/12]Romney Said He Would “Limit Deductions And Exemptions.” MR. ROMNEY: Well, actually, it does. And the—the good news is that five different economic studies, including one at Harvard and Princeton and AEI and a couple at The Wall Street Journal all show that if we bring down our top rates and actually go across the board, bring down rates for everyone in America, but also limit deductions and exemptions for people at the high end, while you can keep the progressivity in the code, you could remain revenue neutral and you create an enormous incentive for growth in the economy.” [Meet The Press, NBC, 9/9/12]Romney Said He Would “Limit Or Eliminate Some Of The Loopholes And Deductions At The High End.” GREGORY: “But Erskine Bowles, who is part of the Simpson Bowles commission, said that something’s got to give. That your plan would not actually reduce the deficit. That indeed taxes would have to go up on the middle class. What—what gives if you’re not right about your projections?” MR. ROMNEY: “Well, because first of all I’ve got Princeton, Harvard, Wall Street Journal and AEI all saying actually that we can bring down the rates. And if we limit or eliminate some of the loopholes and deductions at the high end, we keep the current progressivity of the code and we get the same revenue coming into the government. And one marvelous thing we get is more growth of the economy. And my—my—my tax policy is designed to find a way to encourage more—more hiring in this—in this country. I’m—I’m very concerned that we have 23 million people that are out of work or stopped looking for work or under-employed.” [Meet The Press, NBC, 9/9/12]Romney Said His Plan Would “Keep Revenue Up By Limiting Deductions And Exemptions.” ROMNEY: “And so everything I want to do with regards to taxation follows simple principles, which is bring our rates down to encourage growth, keep revenue up by limiting deductions and exemptions and make sure we don’t put any bigger burden on middle income people. In fact, I want to lower the burden on middle income people.” [Meet The Press, NBC, 9/9/12]Romney: “People At The High End, High Income Taxpayers, Are Going To Have Fewer Deductions And Exemptions.” GREGORY: “Can you give me an example of a loophole that you will close.” MR. ROMNEY: “Well, I can tell you that people at the high end, high income taxpayers, are going to have fewer deductions and exemptions. Those—those numbers are going to come down. Otherwise, they’d get a tax break. And I want to make sure people understand, despite what the Democrats said at their convention. I am not reducing taxes on high income taxpayers.” [Meet The Press, NBC, 9/9/12] Romney: “I’m Bringing Down The Rate Of Taxation, But Also Bringing Down Deductions And Exemptions At The High End.” ROMNEY: I’m bringing down the rate of taxation, but also bringing down deductions and exemptions at the high end so the revenues stay the same, the taxes people pay stay the same. Middle income people are going to get a break. But at the high end, the tax coming in stays the same. But we encourage small business, because small business is able to keep more of what it makes and therefore hire more people, which is my priority.” [Meet The Press, NBC, 9/9/12]Romney: “I Have Not Said That We Would Eliminate, For Instance, The Home Mortgage Interest Deduction.” “BARNES: “We saw some news on tax reform and the mortgage interest deduction from the party, Republican Party, yesterday, as it puts together its platform for the convention. And you've talked about potentially eliminating the mortgage interest deduction as part of tax reform for -- for wealthier Americans. How do you define wealthy Americans there? What would be the cutoff for you?” ROMNEY: You know, I haven't described specifically what changes would -- would occur with regards to deductions or exemptions for higher income Americans. And -- and so I have not said that we would eliminate, for instance, the home mortgage interest deduction. But I do note the -- that for -- for higher income Americans, we're going to maintain the progressivity in the code.” [Romney Interview On Fox Business, 8/23/12]Romney: “I’m Looking, Instead, To Lower Tax Rates And Limit Deductions And Exemptions.” ROMNEY: “And -- and with regards to making sure that's the case, there's no particular cutoff, other than to look at various groups, the top 1 percent, the top 5 percent, the top 10 percent and so forth, just to look and see whether -- whether we have, through our plans, inadvertently given a -- a big hike or a -- or a reduction that was unintended to one particular income group, in which case, we'd need to take a -- actions to assure that we don't change the progressivity of the code. I -- I'm not looking, as I know the Obama people want to say, to reduce taxes for wealthy people. I'm looking, instead, to lower tax rates and limit deductions and exemptions in such a way that we have enterprises, small businesses able to keep more of their capital, and, at the same time, simplify the code.” [Romney Interview On Fox Business, 8/23/12]When Asked How Romney’s Tax Plan Helps The Middle Class When The Tax Cuts Favor The Wealthy, Romney Responded: “I Have No Tax Cuts To Help Wealthy Americans. My Tax Cuts Are Designed To Bring Tax Rates Down But Also Get Rid Of Deductions And Exemptions Or Limit Them For High Income People.” Karen Todd Griffin: “You know, your tax cuts in some ways favor wealthy Americans. What do you plan to do to help the middle class?” Romney: “Well first of all, I have no tax cuts to help wealthy Americans. My tax cuts are designed to bring tax rates down but also get rid of deductions and exemptions or limit them for high income people. So high income people will pay the same share of the tax burden they pay today. What I want to do to help middle income Americans is get good jobs again in this country with rising wages, more take-home pay and to do that there are five things that I’ll do: one, really take advantage of our energy resources. That’s very different than the president, who’s made it very hard to take advantage of energy. Number two, I want to get our schools to be the best in the world and give training programs to our adults that allow them to compete in the jobs of today. Number three, I want to open up trade with Latin America, in particular, and around the world and clamp down on cheaters in trade like China. Number four, I will actually get us on track to have a balanced budget. And number five I’m going to champion small business. The reason I want to bring taxes lower is I don’t want small business to keep from hiring people. I also want to get the regulators to encourage small business and finally Obamacare, which is scaring the heck out of small businesses, needs to be repealed and replaced with something which keeps the cost of healthcare down.” [KRNV TV (Nevada), 8/21/12]Romney: “Deductions And Exemptions For High-Income People Will Be Limited.” NOBLES: “Let’s first talk about your tax plan, which is something that the Obama administration and the Obama campaign have attacked on a pretty regular basis. Now, you’ve talked about cutting corporate taxes and a 20 percent tax cut on the marginal tax rates, but you’ve also said that this tax plan is going to be paid for. The Obama administration has used this as an opportunity to attack your plan because they say that you’re going to have to eliminate deductions in order to pay for that, but you haven’t specifically talked about what deductions might be eliminated. Could you give us some specific idea of how this tax plan will be paid for?” ROMNEY: “Well, yes, and that is that deductions and exemptions for high-income people will be limited, and the purpose for that, of course, is to make sure that we keep the code as progressive as it is now. I’m not going to reduce the share of taxes paid by the highest-income individuals in our country; they’ll still pay the largest share as they do today. And one thing’s critical: I will not increase taxes on middle-class Americans. Middle-class Americans are going to see a tax reduction, in part because I’m going to eliminate all taxes on interest, dividends and capital gains for middle-income Americans.” [WWBT (Virginia), SC, 8/16/12]Romney: “For Higher Income People, I Think Some Of Those Deductions Will Be Limited In Order To Keep The Progressivity In The Code.” REPORTER: “You talk about closing loopholes does that mean eliminating deductions, some of the populars ones perhaps like the mortgage deduction or the charitable giving deduction?” ROMNEY: “No, I’ve indicated, for middle income people, there will have to of course continue to recognize the importance of those deductions. For higher income people, I think some of those deductions will be limited in order to keep the progressivity in the code.” ?[WBTV in Charlotte, NC, 8/16/12]In Reference To Deductions And Exemptions In The Tax Code, Romney Said That For High Income Earners, “We're Going To Have To Eliminate Those Things So That, Er, Excuse Me, Limit Those Things So That We Can Make Sure And Keep The Top Earners Paying The Same Share At Least As What They Pay Today.” REPORTER: “You talk about closing loopholes does that mean eliminating deductions, some of the populars ones perhaps like the mortgage deduction or the charitable giving deduction?” ROMNEY: “…I want to bring the tax rates down and simplify our tax structure. But a lot of the deductions and exemptions and loopholes and so forth, all of the special deals that come along, I think, for people at the high end, we're going to have to eliminate those things so that, er, excuse me, limit those things so that we can make sure and keep the top earners paying the same share at least as what they pay today.” [WBTV in Charlotte, NC, 8/16/12]Romney: “I Want To Limit Deductions And Exemptions For High-Income People.” ROMNEY: “I want to bring down rates, make the code simpler, I want to limit deductions and exemptions for high-income people. But high-income people, when you finish going through my plan, and we score it properly, I will not have a plan that lowers the share paid by high-income folks or that in any way raises taxes on middle-income Americans.” [Romney Press Availability, North Las Vegas, NV, 8/3/12]When Asked How He Would Handle Spending Cuts, Romney Said He Would “Reform Our Tax Code By Bringing The Rates Down Across The Board For Everybody. Also, Limiting Deductions And Exemptions So That Highest Income People Continue To Pay The Share That They’re Paying Now. I’m Not Looking For Tax Breaks For High-Income Folks.” “And On The Spending Front, Again, I Don’t Think You Go Off And Cut A Trillion Dollars Out Of Our Budget, Particularly At A Time Like This.” KUDLOW: “If you were elected, OK, you want to extend the tax cuts, what about this--what about the spending cuts? A lot of people worried about that. A lot of people worried about the debt ceiling, a lot of people worried about a government shutdown. How would a President Romney handle that right at the beginning of your administration?” ROMNEY: “Well, my plan is to, one, to get a bit of a runway to put in place policies that'll get the economy going. And so when I say extend the current tax setting, what I'm saying is don't raise taxes. Keep the taxes in place that we have. And then I would like to reform our tax code by bringing the rates down across the board for everybody. Also, limiting deductions and exemptions so that highest income people continue to pay the share that they're paying now. I'm not looking for tax breaks for high-income folks, but I am looking for more money being kept in small business so we can hire more people and pay better wages. This is the right course for America. And on the spending front, again, I don't think you go off and cut a trillion dollars out of our budget, particularly at a time like this. But you do eliminate some programs which over time will save more and more money because these programs grow at very large rates, so that we can show the world that we're on track to having a balanced budget within eight to 10 years.” [The Kudlow Report, CNBC, 7/23/12]Romney Said He Would “Make The Bush Tax Cuts Permanent” And “Reform Our Tax Code” But Did Not Specify Which Deductions And Exemptions He Would Limit. HANNITY: “Would you push to make the Bush tax cuts permanent? Would you, for example, would you cut taxes even further and, if so, where so?” ROMNEY: “So the answer is I would make the Bush tax cuts permanent, but then go to work to reform our tax code altogether. And so I want to reduce the corporate tax rate from 35 to 25 so that we’re now finally competitive with other nations. I want people who are making $250,000 a year and less not to have to pay any tax whatsoever on capital gains, interest, or dividends, and I want to lower the marginal tax rates across the board by 20%. I’m going to limit some deductions and exemptions to pay for that because we have to keep getting revenue, but I want to make sure that we make it attractive once again for small business to grow, to invest in their own business, and not have their returns taxed away by government.” [Sean Hannity Radio Show, 7/10/12]Romney Said He Would “Simplify The Tax Code” And Make It “Simpler, Flatter, Fairer” But Did Not Elaborate On Which Deductions And Exemptions He Would Limit To Pay For The Reduction. Q: “Our tax code is bad. And it's full of corruption because the lobbyists can go in there and it dictates what's going on. Do you support a fair tax or a flat tax that would get rid of the nonsense so that America can truly be what it needs to be?” ROMNEY: “Thank you. Look, I want to see us simplify the tax code. I want to see it simpler, flatter, fairer. What I proposed at this stage is this: I want to lower the marginal tax rate. That's the tax rate you pay across the board by some 20%, so the top rate goes from 35% to 28% and so forth. Bring the rates down. I will limit the deductions and exemptions, all right, so that we can pay for that reduction and you think, well, then what have we accomplished? What we've accomplished is this: small businesses and entrepreneurs will be able to keep more of their money to build their business, which is what I want to have done because for me it's all about jobs. It's creating good jobs for the American people. I want to bring those tax rates down.” [Romney Town Hall, Grand Junction, CO, 7/10/12]7/10/12 Romney Campaign Posted YouTube Video Of Romney Responding To Obama’s Recommendation For A One Year Extension Of Bush Tax Cuts For Americans Earning Less Than $250,000 Annually. HOST: “President Obama this morning is recommending a one year extension of the Bush era tax cuts for Americans who I believe earn $250,000 or less annually. Governor Branstad, one of your supporters, just this morning accused the president of playing class warfare on this. Do you agree? And do you plan to push a more detailed, alternative tax plan in the coming weeks?”? ROMNEY: “Well, I’ve already laid out my plan which is that we should have an extension of the current tax code over a sufficiently long period for us to put in place a restructuring of our entire tax code to bring down the rates in the country at the same time to eliminate – or excuse me, to limit some deductions and exemptions for people at the high end so we keep our code progressive. But remember the Simpson Bowles Commission, it laid out a plan to do what I just described, to get the rates down but to keep the revenue for the government strong, and that’s the place that I would go. And by the way, the president’s announcement that he plans on extending just for certain classes of Americans – what he’s really saying is that those that are job creators and small businesses are going to see a massive tax increase, and that will kill jobs. The president’s plan is aimed at small business and job creators. It will kill jobs in this country and hurt the middle class. The right answer is to extend the tax rates as they currently exist indefinitely until we put in place a new and reformed system.” [Romney on Radio Interview in Iowa, Romney Comms YouTube Channel, Uploaded 7/10/12]Romney Said His Plan To “Get [Tax] Rates Down” While “Limiting…Some Of The Deductions And Exemptions” Would Encourage “Business Expansion.” ?MEDVED: “You talk about—you’ve laid out a program for bold tax reform, and when you look at the details of it, it’s pretty sweeping and systemic. Are you going to aim at that in your first year, Governor?” ROMNEY: “…From my standpoint, we’ve got to take bold action from the very beginning and that does include tax reform that brings down the rate of taxation for individuals and for small businesses and for businesses of all kinds, at the same time keeps the revenue coming into government by limiting some of the deductions and exemptions, particularly for people at the high income levels, so we can keep the progressivity in the code. We can just get our rates down and that will encourage growth. It will encourage business startups and business expansion, and that means jobs for middle-income Americans.” [Michael Medved Radio Show, 7/9/12]Romney Touted His Tax Plan As “Cutting Out Exemptions And Deductions And Loopholes.” ROMNEY: “I have a plan. My plan calls for action that will get America working again and create good jobs, both near and long-term. It includes finally taking advantage of our energy resources, building the Keystone pipeline, making sure we create energy jobs and we convince manufacturers that energy will be available and low cost in America. It means opening up new markets for American trade, particularly in Latin America where the opportunities are extraordinary. It means cracking down on China when they cheat and making sure they don't steal our jobs unfairly. It means bringing our tax rates down, our marginal tax rates down, and cutting out the exemptions and deductions and loopholes that are unfair in many cases.” [Romney Comments on June Jobs Report, Jansing & Co., Wolfeboro, NH, 7/6/12]Romney: “We Will Limit Those Deductions So That We Maintain Our Revenue.” ROMNEY: “In other cases we will limit those deductions and exemptions so that we maintain our revenue through growth and through limiting of these special deals, but bring our tax rates down so they are competitive and attractive for jobs to come back to America.” [Romney Comments on June Jobs Report, Jansing & Co., Wolfeboro, NH, 7/6/12]Romney Refused To Say How He Planned To Pay For His Proposed Tax Cuts, And Said “Well, We’ll Go Through That Process With Congress.” Schieffer: “We know Governor, you’ve told us, you haven’t been bashful about telling us where you want to cut taxes. When are you going to tell us where you’re going to get the revenue? Which of the deductions are you going to be willing to eliminate? Which of the tax credits are you going to…when are you going to be able to tell us that?” Romney: “Well, we’ll go through that process with Congress as to which of all the different deductions and exemptions—“ [Face the Nation, CBS, 6/17/12]Romney: “We Can Have Lower Rates As I’ve Proposed That Creates More Growth And We Can Limit Deductions And Exemptions.” Schieffer: “But do you have any ideas now, like the home mortgage interest deduction, you know, various ones?” Romney: “Well Simpson-Bowles went through a process of saying how they would be able to reach a setting where they had actually, under their proposal, even more revenue for the government with lower rates. So mathematically it’s been proved to be possible. We can have lower rates as I’ve proposed that creates more growth and we can limit deductions and exemptions.” [Face the Nation, CBS, 6/17/12]Romney: “One Of The Absolute Requirements Of Any Tax Reform That I Have In Mind Is That People Who Are At The High End, Whether You Call Them The One Percent, Or Two Percent, Or Half A Percent, The People At The High End Will Still Pay The Same Share Of The Tax Burden They’re Paying Now.” Schieffer: “We know Governor, you’ve told us, you haven’t been bashful about telling us where you want to cut taxes. When are you going to tell us where you’re going to get the revenue? Which of the deductions are you going to be willing to eliminate? Which of the tax credits are you going to…when are you going to be able to tell us that?”? ROMNEY: “…But my view – my view is the right way to do that is to limit them for high income individuals because I want to keep the progressivity of the code. One of the absolute requirements of any tax reform that I have in mind is that people who are at the high end, whether you call them the one percent, or two percent, or half a percent, the people at the high end will still pay the same share of the tax burden they’re paying now…” [Face the Nation, CBS, 6/17/12]Romney: “I’ll Limit Deductions And Exemptions So That Again The Revenue Coming Into The Government Remains The Same.” ROMNEY: “I want to bring the marginal tax rates down in American from 35 to 28. I’ll cut them across the board, by the way. But I’ll also limit deductions and exemptions so that again the revenue coming into government remains the same, but that we get the rates down so we can encourage business and jobs, which again in my priority.” [Romney Business Roundtable, 6/13/12] Romney: “My Plan Is To Lower The Marginal Tax Rate, Eliminate – Or Excuse Me, Limit Deductions And Exemptions For People At The High End So We Can Keep The Revenue Coming Into Washington, But Get Those Tax Rates Down So Small Business Can Hire People.” Romney: “When the president proposes, as he has, raising the personal income tax rates took from 35% at the margin to 40%, it means less money for people like Debbie to be able to invest in new furniture and new trucks and new customers and new sales people. It means fewer jobs. That's why raising taxes is the wrong way to go. If your objective is to get people working again. My plan is to lower the marginal tax rate, eliminate – or excuse me, limit deductions and exemptions for people at the high end so we can keep the revenue coming into Washington, but get those tax rates down so small business can hire people.”[Romney Las Vegas Event, 5/29/12]When Discussing His Tax Plan, Romney Said, “You Know I Look At Simpson-Bowles For Instance, And They Laid Out A Plan That Shows You Could Lower Rates Just Like I Suggested And You Can Do So By Limiting Certain Deductions And Exemptions..” Halperin: “Want to ask you about tax reform, also a very big part of your economic agenda to lower rates and eliminate or scale back some deductions for some people in order to offset the loss of revenue and static analysis, at least from the lower rate. So, some of your Republican colleagues, people you respect like Paul Ryan and Rob Portman, have started to lay out what they think at least the outlines would be of what those limits on deductions, scaling back deductions, would be. You’ve talked about specifically what the lower rates would be. Are you ready, or will you be ready before the election, to say things like the home mortgage deduction for some Americans, upper-income Americans, or the charitable deduction or state-level tax deduction. Are you going to be prepared before the election to spell those out a little bit more specifically or more specifically than you have?” Romney: “Time will tell. You know I look at Simpson-Bowles for instance, and they laid out a plan that shows that you could lower rates just like I suggested and you can do so by limiting certain deductions and exemptions. For me the ground rules of these, that we want to bring our rates down, that we want to keep the progressivity of the code.” [Mitt Romney interview with Mark Halperin, Time, 5/23/12]Romney: “The Place Where You’ll See Deductions And Exemptions Most Significantly Reduced Will Be At The High-Income Level.” “I’m not looking to lower the tax burden paid by the highest-income Americans. That’s a fundamental principle. I’m looking, if there’s any break at all, the break will go to middle-income Americans that have been most hurt by the Obama economy. What that means is that the place where you’ll see deductions and exemptions most significantly reduced will be at the high-income level. And which of those will be specifically reduced will be something we’ll work out with Congress. But does the math work? Simpson-Bowles proves the math works. You can get there. But the decision as to which is the area that will be limited and by how much? That’s something we’ll work with Congress to determine.” [Mitt Romney interview with Mark Halperin, Time, 5/23/12]Romney Described His Tax Plan As “Limiting Deductions And Exemptions For High-Income Americans.” ROMNEY: “ I think it’s very clear what my posture with regards to taxation. I’m perfectly pleased to have people understand the principles of my tax proposal, lowering the rates, keeping the highest-income people paying the same share the pay now, providing a break if possible to middle-income folks, and limiting deductions and exemptions for high-income Americans.” [Mitt Romney interview with Mark Halperin, Time, 5/23/12]Romney: “You Get Rid Of Some Of The Deductions And Special Breaks That Big Companies Get And We're Gonna Get The Rates Down, Particularly For Small Businesses.” REPORTER: “If elected President, what do you propose to do to increase jobs – make jobs in Florida, and help with the housing?” ROMNEY: “Well there are a number of things we have to do to get this job market strong again. What we've seen from the Administration is a series of policies that are anti-job, anti-investment and anti-small business. We really need to help small business if we're gonna get this economy going-- so how do you do it? One. You don't raise taxes on them like the President's proposing, in fact you lower the marginal rate. And you get rid of some of the deductions and special breaks that big companies get and we're gonna get the rates down, particularly for small businesses. Two, you get rid of the massive overhang of federal debt. This debt is frightening investors from putting money into the?United States?and hiring people in this country.” [WFLA, Tampa Bay, FL, 5/16/12]Romney: “I Want To Lower Or Restrict The Deductions And Exemptions And Special Breaks So That We Keep The Current Progressivity In The Code But We Bring Our Tax Rates Down.” Reporter: “You have a plan to cut taxes for all Americans? Can you explain that?” Romney: “What I’d like to do is to lower the tax rates for all Americans and at the same time, for higher income Americans, I want to lower or restrict the deductions and exemptions and special breaks so that we keep the current progressivity in the code but we bring our tax rates down. That will encourage in particular small business, because small business pays taxes at the individual tax rate. I want small businesses to be able to keep more money, so they can add more people, build more facilities and get America working again.” [WKTR, 5/3/12]Romney: “I’m Also Gonna Limit Deductions And Exemptions For High Income Individuals, So That High Income People Don’t Pay A Smaller Share Of The Total Burden That They Are Paying Now.” Dufala: “One more question, I’m sorry, excuse me. On that subject of the tax rate, a lot has been said about your tax rate of 15% and I know that many Americans are paying a higher tax rate than that who make far less money. What can you do to even the gap?” Romney: “Well, the right course for America with regards to taxation is to simplify our tax code. I’d love to see the rates brought down. I propose bringing down the rates for everyone by some 20%. I’m also gonna limit deductions and exemptions for high income individuals, so that high income people don’t pay a smaller share of the total burden that they are paying now. But my view for taxation is to simplify the code, bring the taxation down for all people, and particularly for people in the middle income category. I don’t think people who are making $250,000 a year or less should have to pay taxes on their savings. That means no tax on interest, dividends, or capital gains.” [WOIO-TV, Cleveland, OH, 4/19/12]Romney Suggested His Limits To Tax Deductions Would Not Be Limited To High Income People But Only “Particularly For High Income Folks.” Romney: “What we really need to do is to simplify our tax code, lower our rates, at the same time, eliminate or limit, rather, some deductions or exemptions, particularly for high income folks, and by virtue of doing that, you can keep the progressivity in the code. At the same time, you can make it more likely for small businesses to start.” [Kudlow Report, CNBC, 4/17/12]Romney: “Virtually All Of The Deductions And Exemptions, Particularly For High-Income Taxpayers, Are Going To Be On The Table…” ROMNEY: “Well, I've put a number of things on the table, and you understand that virtually all of the deductions and exemptions, particularly for high-income taxpayers, are going to be on the table because we're going to have to eliminate the--well, limit, rather, not eliminate, but limit for high-income individuals some of the deductions and exemptions in order to compensate for the reduction in rates.” [Kudlow Report, CNBC, 4/17/12]Romney Said His Plan To Bring Tax Rates Down Would Be Paid For By “Limiting The Deductions And Exemptions, Particularly On High-Income Folks.” ROMNEY: “This is, of course, the way Bowles-Simpson laid out their plan. Bring the rates down, the tax rates down, the top marginal rates down so businesses have an incentive to hire again and to grow; and to pay for that, in part, by limiting the deductions and exemptions, particularly on high-income folks, because it is my intent not to reduce the burden paid by the top earners but instead to maintain it at its current level but to bring the rates down.” [Kudlow Report, CNBC, 4/17/12]Romney: “We’re Going To Limit Deductions And Exemptions, Particularly For High-Income Individuals.” KUDLOW: “So you're sticking with it, you're not pulling back? There was a story in The New York Times, some of your aides were saying, `Oh, no, no, don't take that seriously.' It sounds like you're staying with it. Some of these deductions are going to have to go. …” ROMNEY: “Well, I can say this, what I'm standing by is that--and I've said this from the very beginning--we are going to limit deductions and exemptions, particularly for high-income individuals. As to which specifics and how much the limits will be and at what income levels they'll be limited, that's something which time will tell. We'll work out that with Congress.” [Kudlow Report, CNBC, 4/17/12] Romney Said He Will “Limit Some Deductions And Exemptions.” ROMNEY: “But we're going to have to broaden the tax base and limit some deductions and exemptions if we're going to compensate for the reduction in rates.” [Kudlow Report, CNBC, 4/17/12]Romney: “My Own Plan Is To Lower The Tax Rates, But Also Limit Some Of The Deductions And Exemptions And Breaks, Particularly For High Income Folks.” ROMNEY: “And the President, of course, has been campaigning for something known as the Buffett Rule, the Buffett Tax. And I understand that was defeated in the Senate yesterday, so that’s probably not going to happen, but not a tax that had much of an impact. As a matter of fact, someone calculated that that tax would raise enough revenue to pay for government for eleven hours. So it was more of a gimmick than it was a real proposal to reform our tax system and make life a little easier. My own plan is to lower the tax rates, but also limit some of the deductions and exemptions and breaks, particularly for high income folks, so we can continue to get the revenue we’ve been getting – when I say we, I’m talking about the government – but can do so in a tax structure that’s simpler and with rates that are a little lower so that businesses can afford to hire and expand and people can have a little easier time making ends meet.” [Romney Roundtable, Bethel, PA, 4/17/12]Romney: “I’d Like To Bring The Rates Down Across The Board By Twenty Percent And Then Limit Deductions And Exemptions, And Particularly For Those At The Higher Income Level.” ROMNEY: “I would actually like to, to reshape the entire tax system, alright, what I’d like to do and to simplify the system as opposed to all these—“ COMMUNITY MEMBER: “Baby steps.” ROMNEY: “--Little baby steps. I’d like to bring the rates down across the board by twenty percent and then limit deductions and exemptions, and particularly for those at the higher income level. Because I’m not looking to find a reduction in the burden paid by the top income earners. I want the top income earners to continue to pay the share they’re paying now. But I do want to help middle income families find a way to make it easier to make ends meet. So I hope I can get the rates down in such a way that you’ll find the tax burden less…“[Romney Roundtable, Bethel, PA, 4/17/12]Romney: “I’m Going To Limit Certain Deductions And Exemptions For High Income Individuals.” DIANE SAWYER: “A lot has been made about the Buffett Rule-- going to come up for a vote-- and the fact that your tax plan would give an additional $147,000 by some estimates to the top wage earners in this country. And we understand that last night you talked about maybe HUD would go. You said you may not see that again. Are you going to get rid of HUD? Are you going to reduce the size of the Education Department?” MITT ROMNEY: “Well, let me talk about the first part of your question which is on taxes. My tax plan, I said key principle is the highest income individuals in the country would not pay a lower share after my tax plan. So I'm going to limit certain deductions and exemptions for high income individuals so that even as we lower the rates for all Americans we're not going to shift the burden from middle income people to higher income people. I want to help middle income people the most, so that's part one. My plan will not in its final plan reduce the burden paid by the highest income people in the country. I'm not looking for tax cuts for the rich. The Democrats always want to say that. But in this case I've made it very clear. My plan will not reduce the burden that's taken by the top few percent 1% or however you want to categorize those of higher income.” [Interview, ABC News, 4/16/12]Romney Said He’d Pay For Plan To Lower Tax Rates “By Getting Rid Of Some Of The Special Tax Breaks And Exemptions And Deductions And So Forth That Have Been Worked Into The Code Over The Years.” Q: “I just wanted to ask, there's a lot of discussion on individual tax rates in this election, less about corporate tax rates. I know your plan talks about taking it down 25%, but what additional steps do you take there to get competitive and bring some of those revenues back home when you have countries jockeying, sub-20, in Switzerland and other places?” ROMNEY: “Yeah, those that are not familiar with this, some countries have figured out that business is a good thing, not a bad thing, and that if they have tax rates that are lower, that it might over time encourage businesses to grow there. And so we, with the highest tax rate in the world of any developed nation, we’re scaring away, encouraging businesses to leave. So we’ve gotta become more competitive. One way is to bring our tax rate more down towards the European level. Can you believe saying that? Get our tax rate down 25% and then, by the way, help pay for that by getting rid of some of the special breaks and exemptions and deductions and so forth that have been worked into the code over the years.” [Romney town hall, Wilmington, DE, 4/10/12]Romney: “I’m Going To Limit Deductions And Exemptions, Particularly For High Income Folks So That The High-Income Folks Pay The Same Share They Pay Now.” ROMNEY: “I want to take the marginal tax rate, that means the top tax rate that Americans pay and I want to reduce that for every American by about 20% from where it is now. Now you might think, well, oh, how are you going to do that? How are you going to pay for it? Well, I’m going to limit deductions and exemptions, particularly for high income folks so that the high-income folks pay the same share they pay now. I’m not looking to lower taxes on the wealthy, as the democrats always charge. The wealthy will pay the same share of the burden they pay now.” [Wilmington Town Hall, DE, 4/10/12]Romney: “I will Cut Marginal Tax Rates Across The Board For Individuals And Corporations And Limit Deductions And Exclusions.” ROMNEY: “I will cut marginal tax rates across the board for individuals and corporations and limit deductions and exclusions. I will repeal burdensome regulations and prevent the bureaucracy from running new ones.” [NAA/ASNE delivered remarks, 4/4/12]Romney Said He Wanted To “Get Tax Rates Down And Eliminate A Lot Of The Deductions And The Breaks And The Special Deals That A Lot Of Definitely Industries Get.” VAN SUSTEREN: “I'm talking about the big guys, the really big oil companies. I was looking at (INAUDIBLE) today -- the profit, something like $20 billion or $30 billion of profit. And that's a lot of profit because they get tax breaks. And I'm wondering because every time they get a tax break, that means the rest of us somehow pay for it indirectly. And the president doesn't want them to get those big tax breaks. Do you support those -- do you support those tax breaks?” ROMNEY: “I'm not sure precisely what big tax breaks we're talking about, but I do know that the right course for American production generally, not only of oil but of all things -- agriculture, machinery -- everything we make in this country is subject to the highest tax in the world. Corporate taxes in America are the highest in the world. And then there are various breaks and deductions and exemptions that certain industries have been able to win through lobbying over the years. What I'd like to do is to get the tax rate down so we're competitive with places like Europe, for Pete's sake -- get tax rates down and eliminate a lot of the deductions and the breaks and the special deals that a lot of definitely industries get. And I'll look at them one by one. There are just reams of them. Let's simplify the tax code for our employers of all kinds, particularly for small employers, and get our tax rate competitive with other nation nations so we'll keep jobs here, rather than having them go elsewhere.” [On The Record, Fox News, 4/2/12]Romney: “I Will Be Eliminating A Lot Of The Special Breaks And Exemptions, The Deductions Which Companies Of Various Kinds Get.” ROMNEY: “Well, I must admit, I don’t like subsidies and breaks on a permanent basis, sometimes a subsidy can get a company or industry up and going or a technology up and going, but these things shouldn’t be permanent. With regards to the oil and gas subsidies he’s referring to, I don’t know specifically what he has in mind, but I can tell you this—We now have the highest corporate tax rate in the world. And I have proposed bringing that rate down from 35% to 25% and as part of that effort I will be eliminating a lot of the special breaks and the exemptions, the deductions which companies of various kinds get. And so I’ll be looking at the oil companies as well as other industries to make sure that we have a level playing field, we’re not giving a special deal to one industry over another.” [WISN (Milwaukee, WI), 4/2/12] Romney: “I Would Also Limit Deductions And Exclusions, Particularly Those At The Higher Income Levels.” PETHOKOUKIS: “If Obamacare gets thrown out, we could have clear field for healthcare reform in 2013. Do you have favor limiting or phasing out the tax exclusion for employer-provided healthcare, which analysts say contributes to the third-party payment problem which drives up healthcare costs?” ROMNEY: “My tax plan is lowering the marginal rates across the board by 20%. And I indicated that I would also limit deductions and exclusions, particularly for those at the higher-income levels. My principle is that high-income individuals will pay the same share of the government’s revenue that they pay today. So contrary to Vice President Biden and President Obama, I am not cutting taxes for the rich. I am maintaining the progressivity in the code.” [Interview w/ AEI, 3/30/12]Romney: “You Bring Down The Marginal Rates. At The Same Time You Get Rid Of Some Deductions And Exemptions Or You Limit Them.” LENO: “What would you change about the tax code? What would you do there?” ROMNEY:” What I want to do with the tax code is create more growth. That creates more jobs and puts more people in a position to have a rising incomes and to pay their taxes. So how do you create a tax code that encourages small businesses to hire? And the answer is, you bring down the marginal rates. At the same time you get rid of some deductions and exemptions or you limit them –“ LENO: Mm-hmm.” ROMNEY: “So you stay with a code that's progressive. But you bring down those top tax rates. You get rid of some of the special deals. And by doing that, you encourage investment and hiring of American workers.” [Tonight Show w/ Jay Leno, 3/27/12] Romney: “We’re Lowering Taxes, We’re Limiting The Deductions And Exemptions For High Income Folks.” MCKENNA: “And you would commit to support the Ryan budget plan?” ROMNEY: “You know, I am very, very supportive of the effort that he put out just the other day, indicated my support of his plan. We’re on the same page. My plan has some modest differences here and there but we’re doing the same thing. We’re lowering taxes, we’re limiting the deductions and exemptions for high income folks. At the same time, we’re cutting spending and eliminating some programs, and that is the right course. And I -- Paul Ryan and I have been working together over some months to talk about our mutual plans and we’re on the same page.” [Vicki McKenna Show, WIBA (Madison, WI), 3/21/12]Romney: “I’m Going To Reduce And Restrict Deductions And Exemptions At The Same Time. So The Combination Of Reducing Some Of Those Tax Expenditures, They’re Called And Creating More Growth Will Mean That The Policy Is Revenue Neutral.” ROMNEY: “Thank you. First, I want to correct that last parenthetical, which is the tax cuts. My tax plan actually does cut the marginal rates across the economy by 20 percent. So instead of the president raising taxes from 35 to 40, I take them from 35 to 28. Now the reason I do that, is to create incentives for people to invest and starting small businesses and creating jobs. My priority is jobs and -- and economic vitality and growth and that generates revenue for government.? That -- that's the best way to make that happen. Now, I also point out that I'm going to reduce and restrict deductions and exemptions at the same time. So the combination of reducing some of those tax expenditures, they're called and creating more growth will mean that the policy is revenue neutral. So I'm not going to add to the deficit with my -- with my tax plan. In fact, by getting growth into our economy again, I'll reduce it. But -- but number two, I've also got to cut spending and I recognize that. And -- and I have -- and I have sort of a three-fold approach to how you cut federal spending.” [Univ. Of Chicago Delivered Remarks & Q&A, 3/19/12]Romney: “I Will Limit The Deductions And Exemptions In Such A Way That The Current Progressivity Will Be Maintained.” CHEATHAM: “Tax Policy Center says your tax plan favors the rich. Why do you favor tax cuts for wealthy people?” ROMNEY: “I don’t actually. I’ve made it very clear my plan calls for a 20 percent across the board tax reduction in the marginal rates and that I will limit the deductions and exemptions in such a way that the current progressivity will be maintained. So the high-income folks will pay the same share of the total burden that they pay now and middle-income families will not pay a higher burden but will also pay the same share. My plan is not designed to change the allocation between one group of Americans and another. It’s instead designed to create growth by lowering the marginal tax rates so small businesses have incentive to hire and grow.” [KMOV (St. Louis, MO), 3/13/12]Romney: “We’re Going To Have To Eliminate Or Limit Some Of The Deductions, Exemptions And Loopholes That Exist In The Corporate Code To Be Able TO Get Our Tax Rate Down To 25 Percent Without A Loss Of Revenue.” ROMNEY: “For those entities that are taxed at the corporate level for our corporations then, I would lower the tax rate from 35 percent today to 25 percent and again, we’re going to have to eliminate or limit some of the deductions, exemptions and loopholes that exist in the corporate code to be able to get our tax rate down to 25 percent without a loss of revenue. We can do that. And again it will mean that businesses instead of showing their income overseas they will register that income here in the United States because there’s a lower rate here and as a result we’ll actually end up getting more revenue into our government, not less revenue. This is the funny thing that a lot of Democrats don’t understand. When you lower tax rates, businesses which can choose where they’re going to recognize revenue and recognize profit are going to recognize more profit here and actually end up paying more taxes in this country. It’s just good for America and good for business.” [WLS-AM with guest hosts Jake Hartford & Rep. Peter Roskam, 3/13/12]Romney: “We’re Going To Limit The Deductions And Exemptions To Pay For” Lowering Tax Rates. ANDREW ROSS SORKIN: “Governor, on your tax plan, there has been -- some people who have scored it and suggested that it could cost us $3 trillion dollars ultimately. How do you respond to that?” ROMNEY: “Well, they don't look at the full plan. What I say is we're going to cut the top marginal rate across the board by 20%. And at the same time, we're going to limit the deductions and exemptions to pay for most of that. And then additional growth will pay for the rest of that such that our plan does not increase the deficit. And then combine that with the savings I just described with Tom in terms of cutting back several government programs or eliminating some of those programs and we finally get America to a balanced budget. So all totaled, it's a very strong pro-growth policy that gets the economy going and cuts back on the scale of government. That's the course we have to have. By the way, the reason I think did so well last night, across the country is that people understand we've got a pro-growth plan that will put people back to work and scale back the size of government.” [Squawk Box, CNBC, 3/7/12]Romney: “I Cap And Eliminate, I Don’t Mean Eliminate, Cap And Limit Various Deductions And Exemptions.” ROSS SORKIN: “We've had a lot of executives around this table that have come out in support of the Simpson-Bowles plan. And I’m curious, if that was put to you today on an up or down vote, if you were the president and you had to sign it, would you?” ROMNEY: Well, you know, I want to make it real clear that my plan is the plan I prefer. So I'm not going to sign up for some other plan when the one I've proposed is in many respects is based upon the philosophy of Simpson-Bowles. I mean, what I’ve done is exactly what they did which is I've lowered the marginal rates across the board and I cap and eliminate, I don’t mean eliminate, cap and limit various deductions and exemptions. And we can choose which ones that are primarily eliminated or excuse me, limited for high-income people, people in middle income are going to continue to have a preference for home mortgage interest deduction and charity and so forth. But by virtue of the Bowles-Simpson model which in many respects is the same model I have in my plan, why we're able to create growth and not add to the deficit. So that's the heart of our plan. Get the growth but don't add to the deficit.” [Squawk Box, CNBC, 3/7/12] Romney: “I Haven’t Laid Out All The Details Of How We’re Going To Deal With Each One Of The Deductions And Exemptions.” ROMNEY: “You know what I put out in my plan is a series of principles that allow our economy to grow and at the same time maintain a neutral budget impact. And so I haven’t laid out all the details of how we're going to deal with each one of the deductions and exemptions. So I think it's kind of interesting for the groups to try and score it because frankly, it can't be scored because those kinds of details are going to have to be worked out with Congress and we have a wide array of options.” [Squawk Box, CNBC, 3/7/12] Romney: “We’re Going To Have To Limit The Deductions And Exemptions In Such A Way, Again, Limiting Them More Toward High-Income Folks SO That High-Income Folks Don’t Pay A Smaller Share Of The Total.” ROMNEY: “But I -- One more principle that I mentioned and I want to mention it here is that it is essential to me that we not place a larger share of the tax burden on middle income taxpayers. So that means that we're not going to end up with very high income taxpayers taking a smaller share. We're going to have to limit the deductions and exemptions in such a way, again limiting them more toward high-income folks so that high-income folks don't pay a smaller share of the total. They continue to pay the same share they're paying now. Same things with middle-income taxpayers. I'm not looking for a way to change the progressivity of the code. I'm looking for a way instead to lower the marginal rates which is the most powerful way to encourage the economy to grow and to get investment in jobs again. And that, of course, puts more people into paying taxes and helps recover the tax revenues that we so badly need.” [Squawk Box, CNBC, 3/7/12] Romney: “I’m Limiting Deductions And Exemptions For High-Income Individuals So That We Maintain Progressivity In The Code…” KUDLOW: “Now, let's turn to Rick Santorum. I guess he's your main foe here in Ohio and elsewhere. So Santorum says your economic plan, your supply-side plan--`You're late to the party.' That's what he said. He says you're "tinkering." You've called him "an economic lightweight." So I'll just ask, first of all, why is your plan better than Santorum's plan?” ROMNEY:Well, my plan talks about a marginal tax cut across the board. I want to get our marginal tax rates down. At the same time, I'm limiting deductions and exemptions for high-income individuals so that we maintain progressivity in the code and...”KUDLOW: “OK, so just...” ROMNEY:” ...and--but...go on--and so that we don't add to the deficit. His plan is estimated to add about $900 billion a year to the destimate--to the deficit. We--look, we can't, in the name of growth, massively increase our deficit. We have to bring down the deficit, bring it down to a balanced budget at the same time we encourage growth. I do both.” [Kudlow Report, CNBC, 3/5/12]Romney: To Pay For Tax Rate Reduction “Without Having To Go Into Massive Deficits, You Have TO Bring Down The Deductions And The Exemptions And Close Off Some of the Loopholes.” KUDLOW: “He says, on the point of limiting the deductions, which I agree is a consensus point among tax reformers--but he says in response to you that you're taxing rich people, that you're playing the rich card, that it's 1 percent vs. 99 percent, and that you sound like Obama. So how do you react to that?” ROMNEY: “Well, President Obama wants to raise taxes from 35 percent to 40 percent. I want to take the top marginal rate from 35 percent to 28 percent, and I also want to maintain progressivity in the code. I'm not looking to punish anybody, but I want to maintain a code that's progressive. And as a result of that, to pay for this reduction without having to go into massive deficits, you have to bring down the deductions and the exemptions and close off some of the loopholes.” [Kudlow Report, CNBC, 3/5/12]Romney Said He Would Pay For Tax Plan “By Putting Limits On Exemptions And Deductions, And Special Breaks And Loopholes.” ROMNEY: “And as a result, I will lower the marginal rates across the board by 20%. So that means the rate will go from 35% to 28%. And I'm going to do these things without busting the budget.” GASPARINO: “Right.” ROMNEY: “And I'd do that by putting limits on exemptions and deductions, and special breaks and loopholes so that we end up with a plan which combined with growth, and elimination of those deductions, or -- or excuse me, limiting those deductions...” GASPARINO: “Right.” ROMNEY: “... keeps us from having to add to the deficit.” [Huckabee Forum on Jobs, 3/3/12]Romney: We’re Keeping The Revenue Coming In By Getting Rid Of Some Of Exemptions And Deductions – Or Not Getting Rid Of, But By Limiting Them.” DEVIN LARGENT, COLLEGE SR. WORRIED ABOUT JOB PROSPECTS: “Yes. Governor, Romney, first off, it's a pleasure to speak with you. I want to switch gears to business a little bit. You say you're going to lower the marginal rates. My question is how do you do that and still manage to balance the budget?”ROMNEY: “Ah! That's the rub always. And the answer is by lowering marginal rates across the board, we'll have two things we also do. One is to limit the deductions and exemptions that exist for particularly for people at the high end of the income spectrum so that, one, we maintain progressivity in the code, and number two, we're -- we're keeping the revenue coming in by getting rid of some of exemptions and deductions -- or not getting rid of, but by limiting them. And then secondly, we'll get a growth effect. By lowering the marginal rates, particularly for small businesses, you allow small businesses to hire more people, to pay higher wages. That creates greater growth. The combination of those two makes sure that we don't add to the deficit.” [Huckabee Forum on Jobs, 3/3/12]Romney Said His Proposed $500 Billion In Spending Cuts Were “Real Cuts” Not Just Cuts To Projected Increases. Romney: “The plan I put out calls for a 20 percent across the board cut in the marginal tax rates for all Americans. I do not add to the deficit because I limit the deductions and exemptions for people at the high end of the income table. I also call for about $500 billion in spending cuts to the federal budget and get America finally with a –” Hannity: “When you mean cut, you mean cut or reduction in projected increases using the baseline model?” Romney: “No, I mean real cuts. I had the occasion as the governor of my state we actually cut spending when I came in. I will cut spending in Washington.” [Hannity Radio, 3/2/12]Romney: “I Also Broaden The Base, Which Means For Certain Individuals, High Income Individuals, We’re Going To Limit The Deductions And Exemptions.” ROMNEY: “Yes. What I do is I take -- I get this tax rate. Take the marginal rate down to encourage economic growth, which it will do. Put more people back to work, get more tax revenue by virtue of that. I also broaden the base, which means for certain individuals, high income individuals, we're going to limit the deductions and exemptions. And then I go through and reduce the rate of growth and benefits for high income people and Medicare and Social Security. That's for folks down the road, by the way, not for current retirees.” [Fox News Sunday, Fox News, 2/26/12]Romney: “There Will Be Some Changes In The Current Deductions And Exemptions For Higher-Income Americans.” ROMNEY: “Now, let me make it clear, these changes I will not allow to raise the deficit. Stronger economic growth, spending cuts and broadening the base will offset the reductions. Americans will continue to enjoy the tax benefits that favor important priorities including home mortgage interest deduction, charitable giving, health care, and savings. But there will be some changes in the current deductions and exemptions for higher-income Americans. Those who receive the greatest benefit from that 20 percent cut are going to see the most significant limits on some of the deductions and exemptions so we can keep a code that's progressive.” [Romney Delivered Remarks & Q&A, Ford Field, Detroit Econ Club, 2/24/12]Romney: “For Higher Income People, The Very Wealthiest, A Number Of Deductions Are Going To Be Pretty Severely Restricted And Limited And That’s In Order To Make Sure That We Keep The, The Tax Burden On The Same Kind Of Progressive Basis It Is Today.” Host: “The tax plan you began unveiling yesterday, 20 percent across the board reduction in marginal income tax rates, cutting out some deductions for higher income wage earners. Can you give us any hints, what those deductions that will go away will look like? Which ones will they be?” Romney: “Well for middle income people there’ll be no change that they’re going to notice other than their rates are going to come down somewhat and perhaps some modest changes in various deductions but the place. Where I think people want to know is gosh, is the home mortgage interest deduction going to go away and the answer is of course not and will charitable contribution deductions go away and the answer is of course not. But for higher income people, the very wealthiest a number of deductions are going to be pretty severely restricted and limited and that’s in order to make sure that we keep the, the tax burden on the same kind of progressive basis it is today and what do I mean by that? I mean the top 1 percent of taxpayers are going to pay the same share of the tax burden that they’re paying today. All that said, I want to lower rates 20 percent. Do that across the board. That means you’re going to have a dramatic stimulus for job creation in small business. Fifty-five percent of America’s workers work in small businesses that are taxed at the individual level. Bringing down this tax rate is going to put people to work and have higher wages.” [Frank Beckmann show, WJR Radio, 2/23/12]Romney: “I’m Going To Limit The Deductions And Exemptions, Particularly For High Income Folks.” “There are a couple of things I’d like to announce to you today. I’m gonna lower rates across the board for all Americans by 20%, alright? [cheers] And in order to limit any impact on the deficit, because I do not want to add to the deficit, and also in order to make sure that we continue to have progressivity as we have had in the past in our code, I’m going to limit the deductions and exemptions, particularly for high income folks. And by the way, I want to make sure that you understand, for middle income families, the deductibility of home mortgage interest and charitable contributions, those things will continue, but for high income folks, we are going to cut back on that so that we make sure that the top 1% keeps paying the current share they’re paying or more…” [Romney Rally, Chandler, AZ, 2/22/12]Romney Said His Tax Plan Would Bring Down Tax Rates For Everyone And “Get Rid Of Some Of The Deductions And Exemptions, Make The Code Simpler And At The Same Time, Create A More Pro-Growth Oriented Tax System.” HOST: “[reading from a Wall Street Journal editorial] ‘Mr. Romney might give his candidacy some life with a straightforward theme for tax reform.’ Will you do that?” ROMNEY: “Well I've already laid out some things I'd like to do in tax policy. One is to provide for middle income Americans the ability to save money without having to pay taxes on their interest, dividends or capital gains. So no taxes on those things for middle income Americans, and then I've said I'm going to lay out a plan at some point and we're working on it, that brings down rates for everyone and that makes it simpler for people to pay their taxes and we get rid of some of the deductions and exemptions, make the code simpler and at the same time, create a more pro-growth oriented tax system. Right now, the high tax rates keep some people from going to work and generating the income that our economy needs.” [Fox & Friends, Fox News, 2/15/12]Romney: “I Would Like To See Us Have A Simpler Tax Code With A With A Flatter Set Of Rates With Fewer Exemptions And Deductions.” HANNITY: “And then if you die they get fifty percent of what's left unless you have it buried in some type of trust or something -- so they want three bites of the apple.” ROMNEY: “Yeah, there's no question but that there are ample ways for the government to take more and more from the American people. I would like to see us have a simpler tax code with a with a flatter set of rates with fewer exemptions and deductions -- something akin to what the Bowles-Simpson commission came up with although as you know President Obama just swept that aside but what they came out with, some parts of it made some sense.” [Hannity Radio, 1/30/12]Romney Said He Would “Get Rid Of Deductions And Exemptions And Loopholes And Bring Down The Rates, The Way Bowles-Simpson Did.” KUDLOW: “Now, just following on your cronyism and your defense of free market, do you need to be more prescriptive to link to ordinary people who may not be students of capitalism or--and Joseph Schumpeter, the creative destruction. In other words, how does the defense of free enterprise translate into jobs, economic growth, and prosperity? And most particularly, and I'm sure you know where I'm going on this, many of us want you to adopt a tax reform plan, a full-fledged tax reform plan, lower the rates, broaden the base. I know one of your advisers, Greg Mankiw of Harvard, just had a piece in the Sunday New York Times. Are you going to come out with a kind of phase two tax reform plan to say to people, `Here's specifically what I'm going to do.’” ROMNEY: “Absolutely. Phase one is immediately saying to people making $200,000 and less, no tax on your savings, no tax on interest, dividends, or capital gains. And also, phase one, get the corporate tax rate competitive with the rates in Europe and the rest of the world, get it down to 25 percent. That's phase one. Phase two is to broaden the base. That means get rid of deductions and exemptions and loopholes and bring down the rates, the way Bowles-Simpson did.” [Kudlow Report, 1/26/12]Romney: “Our Plans Are To Put In Place A Plan That Lowers Overall Rates, Lowers Marginal Rates And Reduces Some Of The Exemptions And Deduction The Way That Bowles-Simpson Approached It.” ROMNEY: “So you know, I've given you an indication of where we're heading. I want to take immediate action to help middle income Americans, that's my middle income tax cut. I also want to get our corporate tax rates competitive globally so we can bring more jobs here. But then longer term, our plans are to put in place a plan that lowers overall rates, lowers marginal rates and reduces some of the exemptions and deduction the way that Bowles-Simpson approached it.” [Squawk Box, CNBC, 1/11/12]Ryan: “We’ve Got A Plan That Will Reform The Tax Code, Get Ride Of Special-Interest Loopholes And Limit Deductions So That We Can Lower Everybody’s Tax Rates.” RYAN: “In a Romney-Ryan administration, we are going to champion small businesses and the workers they employ, and not stand in their way.? We’ve got a plan that will reform the tax code, get rid of special-interest loopholes and limit deductions so that we can lower everybody’s tax rates. Simple. Fair. Competitive. That’s the tax code families and small businesses deserve. That’s how you get people back to work. That’s the tax code that we will deliver.” [Ryan Remarks, AARP Life @ 50+ Event, New Orleans, LA, 9/21/12]Ryan: “If You Plug Special Interest Loopholes And Deductions, Primarily Enjoyed By The Wealthy, You Can Lower Tax Rates For Everybody.” RYAN: “Yeah that’s a discredited study, there have been a number of other studies that have shown, look, if you plug special interest loopholes and deductions, primarily enjoyed by the wealthy, you can lower tax rates for everybody. This is an idea that has bipartisan support in the past. Less loopholes, lower tax rates. Families and small businesses, where most our jobs come from, we want to cut taxes across the board by plugging loopholes that means higher take home pay. That means people and families and businesses get to keep more of what they earn. That creates jobs. In the past, Republicans and Democrats have worked together for tax reform, that’s what we’re proposing for this plan. This creates jobs; we think it will help us keep the economy growing at about 4% which will create about 12 million jobs if we can do this.” [Ryan Interview, WSET (Lynchburg, VA), 9/19/12]Ryan: Tax Reform “Means Lower Tax Rates Across The Board For Small Businesses And Families And Plugging Loopholes.” RYAN: “Well I notice 10,000 jobs have already been lost during the Obama Administration from the wind energy. What mitt and I are proposing is a very comprehensive energy plan to get us energy independence by 2020 for North America...what we want to do is lower tax rates on all businesses not just some businesses and so what we’re saying is get fundamental tax reform.? That means lower tax rates across the board for small businesses and families and plugging loopholes.? We think that’s the best way to produce economic growth and we want to encourage more energy production from all of these sources renewable and everything else included.” [Ryan Interview, WOI (Des Moines, IA), 9/17/12]Ryan: “We Want To Say This Is Our Vision, Lower Tax Rates Across The Board For Families And Small Businesses And Work On The Loopholes That Are Enjoyed By The Higher Income Earners, Take Away Their Tax Shelters So More Of Their Income Is Subject TO Taxation.” DAVID BRODY: “There are some conservatives that have spoken out saying they want to see some more specifics from the Romney/Ryan team and one thing that comes up, at least from the liberals is tax loopholes. Is there a reason you guys aren’t naming specific tax loopholes?” RYAN: Yes because we want to get it done. Look, I’ve been on the Ways and Means Committee for 12 years. I’m very familiar with how to make successful tax reforms take place. Ronald Reagan and Tip O’Neil did it in 1986 but we haven’t done it since 1986 for lots of reasons, which is A, we don’t want to presume to say, ‘Here’s exactly our way or the highway take it or leave it Congress.’ We want to say this is our vision, lower tax rates across the board for families and small businesses and work on the loopholes that are enjoyed by the higher income earners, take away their tax shelters so more of their income is subject to taxation. That lowers everybody’s tax rates. And we have to be able to work with Congress on those details, on how to fill it in and, more to the point, we don’t want to cut some backroom deal that they did with Obamacare where we hatched some plan behind the scenes and they spring it on the country. We want to do this in front, in the public, through congressional hearings with Congress so that we can get to the best conclusion with a public participation. That’s the process that works the best to ultimate success, get this done. That’s why we’re doing it this way.” [Ryan Interview, Christian Broadcasting Network, 9/17/12]Ryan: “We Want To Lower Tax Rates Across The Board For Everybody And We Want To Start With Higher Income Individuals.” WARREN: “You are both proposing specific cuts to loopholes, tax loopholes as well. Can you give us a specific loophole that you would cut?” RYAN: “Yeah, so what we think, is we want to lower tax rates across the board for everybody and we want to start with higher income individuals. So when a high income person shelters their money from taxation by putting it in a tax shelter, then they don't pay taxes on it. We want to close those tax shelters on higher income people so we can lower tax rates for everybody. But, here's the best way to get things done in Congress. We're not going to go to Congress and say it's our way or the highway, here's specifically how you have to do it or we don't want to cut some backroom deal like they did with Obamacare. We want to do this in the public with Congress with the public participating in this debate.” [Ryan Interview, WSLS (Roanoke, VA), 9/17/12]When Asked If Mortgage Deduction Would Be Protected, Ryan Responded, “I Don’t Want To Get Into All These Kinds Of Things.” WARREN: “Would you save or would you protect mortgage deductions?” RYAN: “I don't want to get into all these kinds of things.” [Ryan Interview, WSLS (Roanoke, VA), 9/17/12]When Asked If Voters Deserved To Know, Ryan Said, “We Want Southwest Virginians To Be Involved In This Process.” WARREN: “But don't Southwest Virginians have a right to know the answer to that question?” RYAN: “We want Southwest Virginians to be involved in this process. We want their congressman, like Bob Goodlatte, to be involved and participating in how to write these details." [Ryan Interview, WSLS (Roanoke, VA), 9/17/12]Ryan Said Mortgage Deduction Is Important And “There Is Room In The Tax Code Even With These Tax Rate Reductions For Middle Class Tax Preferences.” WARREN: "But that is an important deduction for homeowners and middle class people." RYAN: It is an important deduction. So here's what we’re saying. There is room in the tax code even with these tax rate reductions for middle class tax preferences, but we don't think there's room for higher income tax preferences. So let's have a debate with your congressmen, with your senators, with the people of Virginia to decide what are the best ones to keep for middle class taxpayers. What Mitt Romney has learned as governor of Massachusetts, working with Democrats who dominated his legislature is don't cram everything down their throat. Work with people across the aisle. Say this is my goal, these are my frameworks, let's find common ground to get there. We haven't done this since Ronald Reagan and Tip O'Neill worked together in 1986 and this is the way they proposed to do it. So what we are trying to do is maximize success to get tax reform. Look, we want a simple tax system, we want a fair tax system, we want lower tax rates that create economic growth and jobs. And Our philosophy is approaching this is this: we don't think you should send all your money to Washington and then we'll let you keep some of it if you do what we approve of. We think families and small businesses should keep the money in their pockets in the first place.” [Ryan Interview, WSLS (Roanoke, VA), 9/17/12]Ryan: “Our Tax Reform Proposal – They Have Bipartisan Origin. Get Rid Of Tax Shelters And Special Interest Loopholes, Lower Tax Rates For Everybody.” RYAN: Well, I don't know how you get Harry to do any work. That's been vexing me for three years! So I can't speak for what it takes to get Harry Reid to make decisions or the Senate to do something. But I know what we do is we lead. We reach across the aisle. We don't demonize and demagogue people, we work with them, just like I did on Medicare reform. Our tax reform proposals -- they have bipartisan origin. Get rid of tax shelters and special interest loopholes, lower tax rates for everybody.” [Ryan Interview, On The Record With Greta Van Susteren, Fox News, 9/12/12]Ryan: “We’re Saying By Not Having Higher Income Earners Utilize These Tax Shelters, We Can Lower Rates On Everybody Because They Pay More Of Their Income To Taxation.” RYAN: “So one study from Princeton just said that we can accomplish exactly what we're saying to accomplish which is broaden the base, lower rates. What -- what I mean when I say that is, it's not what loopholes are out there, but who gets them. And we're saying by not having higher income earners utilize these tax shelters, we can lower tax rates on everybody because they pay more of their income to taxation.” [Ryan Interview, Face The Nation, CBS, 9/9/12]Ryan: “What The Numbers Do Show And What Studies Back Up Is That We Can Lower Tax Rates By Plugging Loopholes And Still Maintain Special Preferences For Middle Class Taxpayers.” RYAN: “Here's the other issue, Norah. We don't want to do this in a backroom deal kind of a way like Obama Care was done. We want to have a debate out in front, work with Congress, work with the public to find out what are the priorities we want to have in the tax system. And what the numbers do show and what studies back us up is that we can lower tax rates by plugging loopholes and still maintain special preferences for middle class taxpayers, not for higher incomes taxpayers, though. That's what we want to do, but we don't want to say our way or the highway. What we learned from our experience, my working with Democrats and Congress, Mitt Romney as governor of a Democratic state is that you don't say, here's my plan, take it or leave it, you say here are the outlines of my plan for job creation and economy growth.” [Ryan Interview, Face The Nation, CBS, 9/9/12]Ryan: “We Think The Secret To Economic Growth Is Lower Tax Rates For Families And Successful Small Businesses By Plugging Loopholes.” STEPHANOPOULOS: “How do you make the math work without eliminating the big deductions that middle-class families rely on?” RYAN: “Well, first of all, that -- those claims have been pretty discredited. There have been five different studies –“ STEPHANOPOULOS: “How have they been discredited?” RYAN: “-- that show -- that this -- that this plan works. So the analysis you're citing wasn't even an analysis of the Romney plan. But here's the point I am trying to make here, George. We think the secret to economic growth is lower tax rates for families and successful small businesses by plugging loopholes. Now the question is, not necessarily what loopholes go, but who gets them. High-income earners use most of the loopholes. That means they can shelter their income from taxation. But if you take those loopholes, those tax shelters away from high-income earners, more of their income is subject to taxation. And that allows us to lower tax rates on everybody -- small businesses, families, economic growth.” [Ryan Interview, This Week, ABC, 9/9/12]Ryan: “The Princeton Study, The Harvard Analysis, They Have Shown That You Can Lower Tax Rates, Broaden The Tax Base, And Yes, There Is Still Room Left For Broad-Based Policies That The Middle Class Enjoy So Nobody Has A Tax Increase.” RYAN: “Here's where the president wants to take the country. He wants to add a job-killing small-business tax increase on top of the current code, add even more loopholes and deductions to the code, more Washington picking winners and losers. That will crush jobs. You have to remember, George, that most of our small businesses, they pay their taxes as individuals. Most of our jobs come from these successful small businesses. So we've shown -- look, the Princeton study, the Harvard analysis, they have shown that you can lower tax rates, broaden the tax base, and, yes, there is still room left for broad-based policies that the middle class enjoy so that nobody has a tax increase. We just stop picking winners and losers in the tax code.” [Ryan Interview, This Week, ABC, 9/9/12]Ryan Denied That He And Romney Had A “Secret Plan” For Overhauling The Tax Code. RYAN: “So Mitt Romney and I, based on our experience, think the best way to do this is to show the framework, show the outlines of these plans, and then to work with Congress to do this. That's how you get things done. The other thing, George, is –“ STEPHANOPOULOS: “Isn't that a secret plan?” RYAN: “-- we don't want to -- no, no. No, no. What we don't want is a secret plan. What we don't want to do is cut some backroom deal like ObamaCare, and then hatch it to the country.” [Ryan Interview, This Week With George Stephanopoulos, ABC, 9/9/12]Pressed By George Stephanopoulos, Ryan Refused To Provide Any Specifics On Which Tax Loopholes He And Romney Would Seek To Eliminate. STEPHANOPOULOS: “But why not specify the –“ RYAN: “We want to do this –“ STEPHANOPOULOS: “-- loopholes now?” RYAN: “-- out in the open –“ STEPHANOPOULOS: “Why not say right now –“ RYAN: “-- because we want to do this –“ (CROSSTALK) RYAN: “-- we want to have this -- George, because we want to have this debate in the public. We want to have this debate with Congress. And we want to do this with the consent of the elected representatives of the people, and figure out what loopholes should stay or go and who should or should not get them. And our priorities are high-income earners should not get these kinds of loopholes. And we should have broad-based policies that go to middle-class taxpayers, to make sure we can advance things that we care about, like charities. But that is a debate we shouldn't cut in a back room, shouldn't hatch a secret plan like ObamaCare. We should do it out in the public view where the public can participate.” STEPHANOPOULOS: “That's exactly what I'm suggesting, having it in public before the election so voters can have that information before they make up their minds.” RYAN: “We think the best way to get -- look, I've been in Congress a number of years. I've been on the Ways and Means Committee for 12 years. And we think the best way to do this is to get this framework in place, and then negotiate, work with Democrats, work with people across the aisle, have these kinds of hearings, have this conversation to get this objective.” [Ryan Interview, This Week With George Stephanopoulos, ABC, 9/9/12]Ryan Declined To Say What Tax Deductions He Would Preserve Or Elminate, Saying “We Need To Have A Good Debate In The Country About This.” BARRAS (voiceover): “There’s talk of a proposed Romney-Ryan remake of the tax code, and lower taxes for higher brackets could put middle-class deductions at risk.” BARRAS: “…would preserve the mortgage interest. You would preserve child tax credit. You would preserve health care deductions. If it was your call?”-- RYAN: “I think we need to have a good debate in the country about this. I think want in Congress—I served on the Ways & Means Committee for twelve years, the tax writing committee. We want to hear from Americans about what parts of the tax code are worth keeping, and what parts are worth getting rid of, in exchange for lower tax rates.” [WKYC (Cleveland, OH), 9/4/12]Ryan: “We Should Take Away The Tax Shelters That Allow The Wealthy To Shelter Their Income.” RYAN: “And so, we should take away the tax shelters that allow the wealthy to shelter their income from taxation that allows us to lower tax rates for everybody. The whole point here is it’s about jobs, it’s about economic growth, it’s about charity. It’s about getting Washington out of the business of picking winners and losers for the tax code and people and families keep more of their own money.” [Ryan Interview, WNCT (Greenville, NC), 9/4/12]Ryan: “By Getting Rid Of These Deductions That Higher Income Earners Get, More Of Their Income Is Subject TO Taxation, And That Means We Can Lower Tax Rates For Everybody.” BAIER: “So for – just be specific, Gov. Romney has 20 percent cut across the board on individual rates but he has not identified – you all have not identified – what loopholes and deductions that you’d eliminate. So this Tax Policy Center essentially has made the assumption and concluded that it would mathematically be impossible for Gov. Romney to achieve what he wants without effectively having a tax hike on lower income Americans. Is that fair?” RYAN: “A, their math is wrong. B, there are plenty of other studies that show that they’re wrong and, C, what we’re saying is – here’s how it works today in Washington, Bret. People send their money to Washington – people and businesses. Then if you do what Washington approves, what the lobbyists lobby to get in the tax code, they’ll give you some of your money back if you engage in behavior Washington approves of. We disagree with that. That’s what President Obama’s proposing with even higher tax rates. We’re saying, keep your money in your wallet, in your paycheck, in your business in the first place and you’ll have lower tax rates as a result. And by the way, the people who get most of the deductions are the people in the top tax brackets – the wealthy, not middle-income taxpayers. And so what we’re saying is by getting rid of these deductions that higher income earners get, more of their income is subject to taxation, and that means we can lower tax rates for everybody. So they won’t be able to shelter their income from taxation, but in exchange they’ll get lower tax rates. And when eight out of 10 businesses in America file their taxes as individuals, this is a big small business job creation idea. The President is proposing that tax rates on successful small businesses, where more than half our jobs come from, goes above 40 percent in January. Countries around the world are cutting their tax rates on their successful job creators – Canada cut theirs to 15 percent. President Obama wants them to go above 40 percent. That’s going to give us a recession we think – CBO agrees. And that’s why we’re saying stop picking winners and losers in Washington, let people keep money in the first place, and that means we can lower tax rates across the board for everybody.” [Ryan Interview, Special Report With Bret Baier, Fox News, 8/27/12]Ryan: “Get Rid Of Loopholes, Lower Tax Rates, It’s Good For Economic Growth.” BAIER: “Why not be specific on the loopholes you’ll eliminate and the deductions you’ll eliminate to cut off that attack?” RYAN: “Because what we don’t want to do is just they did with health care reform where we cut some backroom deal like President Obama did in Harry Reid’s office and just give it to the country and then they can read what’s in it later on. We want to go through a transparent process in Congress where we have a dialogue with the public – what of these tax expenditures are important? What are broad-based? We want to get rid of the corporate welfare, the crony capitalism stuff in the tax code, but we want Congress to participate in a transparent debate, in front of the public eye, so we can have a really good debate about how best to broaden the tax base and lower tax rates. And by the way, Bret? There’s a lot of bipartisan agreement to do it this way. Simpson-Bowles proposed doing just this. There are a lot of Democrats who agree with us – get rid of loopholes, lower tax rates, it’s good for economic growth. The problem is, it’s not President Obama, it’s not Harry Reid. They want more loopholes and higher tax rates that will kill economic growth." [Ryan Interview, Special Report With Bret Baier, Fox News, 8/27/12]Ryan On “Loopholes” For High-Income Individuals: “You Take Away Those Loopholes And More Of Their Income Is Subject To Taxation, Which Allows Us To Lower Everybody’s Tax Rates Across The Board.” HANNITY: “One of the main attack lines that the president and his campaign are using is class warfare. There are currently, what, six different specific tax brackets. You wanted to reduce them to two, 10 percent and 25 percent. Explain how reforming the tax code would help people and also explain it through the prism or the narrative that this is, you know, Republicans only helping rich people.” RYAN: “Yes. So let's take a look at the current code. The people who use all the write-offs, most of the special interest loops holes and deductions are people in the top two tax brackets. That means more of their income is sheltered from taxation. You take away those loopholes and more of their income is subject to taxation, which allows us to lower everybody's tax rates across the board. It's a fair, simple, competitive system. We are here in the steel manufacturing fabricating business. This business is paying the individual tax rate, just like 80 percent of all businesses in America do. When you keep raising that top tax rate, you're punishing those successful small businesses, which is where most of our jobs come from.” [Ryan Interview, Special Report With Bret Baier, Fox News, 8/27/12]Ryan Said A Romney-Ryan Administration Would “Get Rid Of Special Interest Loopholes And Deductions That Are Uniquely Enjoyed By The Wealthy So We Can Lower Tax Rates For Everybody.” HUME: “You answer the charge that you're planning massive tax cuts for the wealthy at the expense of the middle class. How do you respond to that allegation?” RYAN: “What we're saying is get rid of special interest loopholes and deductions that are uniquely enjoyed by the wealthy so we can lower tax rates for everybody. Let me put it this way. People use income tax shelters are the people who are in the top tax brackets.” [Ryan Interview, Fox News, 8/14/12]Ryan: “What We Don’t Want TO Do Is Have Corporate Welfare, Crony Capitalism In The Tax Code, Special Interest Tax Give-aways.” HUME: “You know the numbers better than anybody. Can you have the revenue required to meet the budget you are planning without eliminating such deductions as the home mortgage interest deduction or the deduction for municipal bond –“ RYAN: “Yes. There is what we call room for priorities in the tax code that are broad-based. What we don't want to do is have corporate welfare, crony capitalism in the tax code, special interest tax give-aways. And, we want to make sure that middle income taxpayers are the one to enjoy these benefits, not higher income taxpayers.” [Ryan Interview, Fox News, 8/14/12]Ryan Would Not Give Details On Limiting Deductions And Said, “We Want To Get Feedback From Americans About What Priorities In The Tax Code Should Be Kept And What Special Interest Loopholes We Want To Get Rid Of.” HUME: “Will we soon see a plan specific about which loopholes to close?” RYAN: “That is something that we think we should do in the light of day, through Congress, unlike how Obamacare was passed. We don't want a back room deal. What the Ways and Means Committee did, what the House passed is to have a process for tax reform so that we do this in the front of the public. So, no. The point I'm trying to say is, we want to get feedback from Americans about what priorities in the tax code should be kept and what special interest loopholes we want to get rid of.” [Ryan Interview, Fox News, 8/14/12]Ryan: “What We’re Saying Is Let’s Cut Tax Rates Across The Board By 20 Percent For All Families And Successful Small Businesses And Then Do That Through Getting Rid Of Loopholes.” RITTIMAN: “Talking about those specifics, that’s been a source of frustration for people doing fact checks of some of the things coming out in the campaign. And you’re really known as a numbers guy in your career in Congress. But before you got on the ticket, Mitt Romney’s plan as far as taxes and spending – everyone’s looked at it and there hasn’t been a way to really calculate it becuae he hasn’t mentioned specific loopholes or write-offs or whatever you want to call them, to close. And I’m wondering if you plan on chewing up the numbers before Election Day.” RYAN: Well I wouldn’t call it that. What we’re saying is let’s cut tax rates across the board by 20 percent for all families and successful small businesses and then do that through getting rid of loopholes.” [Ryan Interview, KUSA (Colorado Springs, CO), 9/7/12]Ryan: “By Closing These Tax Shelters, By Plugging Loopholes, That Go To Specific Industries And Businesses, That Go To Higher-Income People, Who Shelter Their Money From Taxation, You Can Lower Tax Rates For Everybody.” RYAN: “But we don’t want to cut some kind of a backroom deal like they did with Obamacare. We want this to be done out front, in public, with Congress. That means we need to ask ourselves what priorities for middle income taxpayers should we keep in the tax code. That, and also, who should get the write-offs. Should we be giving write-offs to specific businesses? Should Washington, which Republicans and Democrats have both done, pick winners and losers? Or should high-income individuals be able to shelter a lot of their money from taxation? We don’t think so. By closing these tax shelters, by plugging loopholes, that go to specific industries and businesses, that go to higher-income people, who shelter their money from taxation, you can lower tax rates for everybody. There’s clearly enough fiscal space, they say, to keep some of these priorities for middle income taxpayers.” [Ryan Interview, KUSA (Colorado Springs, CO), 9/7/12]When Asked What Loopholes Would Be Closed, Ryan Said, “We Want To Have An Exhaustive Search Through The Tax Code In Front Of The Public View, With Congress, Not In Some Back Room Like They Did With Obamacare.” RITTIMAN: “So what are some of these loopholes?” RYAN: “I’ll go back to what I said before. It’s not who – it’s really who gets them. Should higher income individuals be able to write off so much of their income from taxation? We don’t think so. But we want to have an exhaustive search through the tax code in the front of the public view, with Congress, not in some back room like they did with Obamacare.” [Ryan Interview, KUSA (Colorado Springs, CO), 9/7/12]Ryan Said Romney-Ryan Will “Plug Loopholes And Special-Interest Giveaways So We Can Lower Everybody’s Tax Rates – Families, Small Businesses, That Creates Economic Growth.” RYAN: “President Obama is promising a major tax increase on the successful small businesses that create most of our jobs; we think that’s the wrong way to go-we want tax reform. Plug loopholes and special-interest giveaways so we can lower everybody’s tax rates- families, small businesses, that creates economic growth. That creates prosperity. That prevents a debt crisis from taking down our economy. That’s what we’re shooting for. We know the policies that work, we want to get growth, we want people to get back to the right to rise and to get this economy growing again. That’s what we’re offering.” [Ryan Interview, WTVR (Richmond, VA), 9/5/12]Ryan: “We Want Pro-Growth Economic Policies, Get Rid Of The Loopholes And The Lobbyist Provisions And The Tax Code And Bring Everybody’s Rates Down, Every Family, Every Small Business, We Can Compete.” RYAN: “See we don’t look at the economy as a fixed pie and that the government’s role is to divide up slices of the pie more equitably, we want to grow the economy, we want to grow the pie. And so we don’t look at people as if they’re stuck in some class or station in life and what we have to remember is that where we get most our jobs in America are those successful small businesses and so when the President keeps talking about raising taxes on people, it’s a tax increase on successful small businesses. Eight out of ten businesses file their taxes as individuals. President Obama wants their tax rate to go above 40%. Other countries are lowering their taxes on businesses; President Obama wants to raise taxes on our small businesses which is where most of our jobs come from. So we don’t think class warfare is the right thing to do from just bringing people together and dividing people but we also think it’s bad economics. We want pro-growth economic policies, get rid of the loopholes and the lobbyist provisions and the tax code and bring everybody’s tax rates down, every family, every small business, we can compete.” [Ryan Interview, WNCT (Greenville, NC), 9/4/12]Ryan: “We’re Going To Reduce People’s Tax Rates By 20% And We’ll Do It By Closing Loopholes.” STEPHANOPOULOS: “And the Democrats, as you know, are already, already taking aim at those solutions. They argue that the Romney/Ryan tax plan and spending and budget plan is gonna crush the middle class, including a $2,000 tax increase on the middle class.” RYAN: “Not true. What we're saying is we're going to reduce people's tax rates by 20% and we'll do it by closing loopholes. Here’s the point, George. We believe that there's a bipartisan consensus to be had through this kind of tax reform. Democrats, like the Simpson-Bowles Democrats, agree with us that we should be lowering tax rates and broadening the base by plugging loopholes so that people get to keep more of their own money, so that families and small businesses can have a fair, simple and better tax system…” [Ryan Interview, Good Morning America, 9/4/12]Ryan Said Tax Breaks For Big Oil Should “Be On The Table” But Defended Them And Accused Democrats Of “Singling Out One Industry” And “Picking Winners And Losers.” STOKOLS: “I want to ask you about energy. On 60 Minutes, when you were interviewed there, you talked about Solyndra and you called it a fad. Do you believe that wind energy, which is big in Colorado, is that also a fad?” RYAN: “I believe that picking winners and losers in the economy is a fad. I believe that picking select companies for government largesse is not a good idea. I think what we should do is invest in basic research so that we can have more renewables. But the government shouldn’t try and prop up specific companies, companies like in Solyndra’s case that are big donors to the Obama campaign, because what you end up doing by raising people’s taxes, borrowing more money, and then handing out favoritism to select industries or select companies that’s cronyism, it’s corporate welfare, it doesn’t work.” STOKOLS: “But isn’t that what Washington’s doing when it gives $4 billion a year to the big oil companies, the big five oil companies. I mean, should those subsidies end too? There are a lot of people who say those companies don’t need them. RYAN: Two points I would make on that – number one, we’re saying in tax reform, all this stuff needs to be on the table. Let’s get rid of all these different loopholes that go to specific industries, oil included, so we can lower tax rates for everybody – businesses, families, corporations – to make us more competitive. Point number two, some of these tax cuts you’re talking about, for that particular sector, go to all manufacturers – the section 199, that goes to all manufacturers – and they’re singling out just one industry to raise their taxes so that American made oil, American made gas, is taxed more than every other manufacturer in America. That’s singling out an industry for penalty. That’s picking winners and losers.” [Ryan Interview, KDVR (Denver, CO), 9/3/12]Ryan: “We Need A Tax System That’s Fair, Simple And Competitive. When You Plug These Loopholes, That Means The Person Making The Same Kind Of Income Pays The Same Kind Of Tax.” RYAN: “The tax code is a mess. The tax code punishes all those qualities that make us great: Saving, investing, working, taking risks. What has happened, over the years, because of both political parties, Republicans and Democrats alike, have put in so many interest group loopholes, have been picking winners and losers through government regulation, through government spending and through the tax code. We’ve got to clean that mess up. We need a tax system that’s fair, simple and competitive. When you plug these loopholes, that means the person making the same kind of income pays the same kind of tax. Period, end of story. Make it clear. That means we can lower everybody’s tax rates, families and small businesses, compete and create jobs in this economy. That is one of the key ideas for economic growth.” [Ryan Event, Roanoke, VA, 8/22/12]Ryan: “Let’s Close All Those Loopholes That Are Special Interest Loopholes That Mostly Go To High Income Earners”. REPORTER: “So, you don’t think that number, thirteen percent, is a perception that people might look at?” RYAN: “There are different effective tax rates based on how different people make different income. If you take a look at all the various studies, we still have a very progressive tax system. What we’re saying is, let’s close all those loopholes that are special interest loopholes that mostly go to high income earners so that we can lower everybody’s tax rates, have a fair, simple, competitive tax system with fewer loopholes so that no matter who you are, what kind of income you make, you got to pay the same rate of taxation. That’s what Mitt Romney is talking about. So we want to clean up this tax system and make sure that it is fair, simple, and competitive, and is wired to create jobs.” [Paul Ryan, Interview, WWBT Richmond, VA, 8/18/12] ................
................
In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.
To fulfill the demand for quickly locating and searching documents.
It is intelligent file search solution for home and business.