Mitt Romneys great plan

includes cutting a whopping 319 billion dollars


MITT’S PLAN
After three years of President Obama, many now question whether we can ever return to fiscal sanity, let alone fiscal strength. A point of no return may well be approaching — a decade of huge deficits could drive our principal payments and interest rates beyond our reach while starving the economy of the capital it needs to grow.

Fortunately, the American economy’s tremendous capacity for growth gives the country one more chance to correct course. Mitt Romney has spent his career executing turnarounds in the private sector, the Olympics, and state government. He will bring to Washington the turnaround philosophy it so badly needs.

Set Honest Goals: Cap Spending At 20 Percent Of GDP

Any turnaround must begin with clear and realistic goals. Optimistic projections cannot wish a problem away, they can only make it worse. As president, Mitt’s goal will be to bring federal spending below 20 percent of GDP by the end of his first term:

Reduced from 24.3 percent last year; in line with the historical trend between 18 and 20 percent
Close to the tax revenue generated by the economy when healthy
Requires spending cuts of approximately $500 billion per year in 2016 assuming robust economic recovery with 4% annual growth, and reversal of irresponsible Obama-era defense cuts (more debt)
Take Immediate Action: Return Non-Security Discretionary Spending To Below 2008 Levels

Any turnaround must also stop the bleeding and reverse the most recent and dramatic damage:

Send Congress a bill on Day One that cuts non-security discretionary spending by 5 percent across the board
Pass the House Republican Budget proposal, rolling back President Obama’s government expansion by capping non-security discretionary spending below 2008 levels
Follow A Clear Roadmap: Build A Simpler, Smaller, Smarter Government

Most importantly, any turnaround must have a thoughtful, structured approach to achieving its goals. Mitt will attack the bloated budget from three angles:

The Federal Government Should Stop Doing Things The American People Can’t Afford, For Instance:
Repeal Obamacare — Savings: $95 Billion. President Obama’s costly takeover of the health care system imposes an enormous and unaffordable obligation on the federal government while intervening in a matter that should be left to the states. Mitt will begin his efforts to repeal this legislation on Day One.
Privatize Amtrak — Savings: $1.6 Billion. Despite requirement that Amtrak operate on a for-profit basis, it continues to receive about $1.6 billion in taxpayer funds each year. Forty-one of Amtrak’s 44 routes lost money in 2008 with losses ranging from $5 to $462 per passenger.
Reduce Subsidies For The National Endowments For The Arts And Humanities, The Corporation For Public Broadcasting, And The Legal Services Corporation — Savings: $600 Million. NEA, NEH, and CPB provide grants to supplement other sources of funding. LSC funds services mostly duplicative of those already offered by states, localities, bar associations and private organizations.
Eliminate Title X Family Planning Funding — Savings: $300 Million. Title X subsidizes family planning programs that benefit abortion groups like Planned Parenthood.
Reduce Foreign Aid — [not eliminate]Savings: $100 Million [lol?]. Stop borrowing money from countries that oppose America’s interests in order to give it back to them in the form of foreign aid.
If pursued with focus and discipline, Mitt’s approach provides a roadmap to rescue the federal government from its present precipice. But that respite will be short-lived without a plan for the looming long-term threat posed by the unsustainable nature of existing entitlement obligations. Learn more about Mitt’s proposals for entitlement reform: [links to Medicare and Social Security]

Empower States To Innovate — Savings: >$100 billion
Block grants have huge potential to generate both superior results and cost savings by establishing local control and promoting innovation in areas such as Medicaid and Worker Retraining. Medicaid spending should be capped and increased each year by CPI + 1%. Department of Labor retraining spending should be capped and will increase in future years. These funds should then be given to the states to spend on their own residents. States will be free from Washington micromanagement, allowing them to develop innovative approaches that improve quality and reduce cost.
Improve Efficiency And Effectiveness. Where the federal government should act, it must do a better job. For instance:
Reduce Waste And Fraud — Savings: $60 Billion. The federal government made $125 billion in improper payments last year. Cutting that amount in half through stricter enforcement and harsher penalties yields returns many times over on the investment.
Align Federal Employee Compensation With The Private Sector — Savings: $47 Billion. Federal compensation exceeds private sector levels by as much as 30 to 40 percent when benefits are taken into account. This must be corrected.
Repeal The Davis-Bacon Act — Savings: $11 Billion. Davis-Bacon forces the government to pay above-market wages, insulating labor unions from competition and driving up project costs by approximately 10 percent.
Reduce The Federal Workforce By 10 Percent Via Attrition [will take years, unlike cutting]— Savings: $4 Billion. Despite widespread layoffs in the private sector, President Obama has continued to grow the federal payrolls. The federal workforce can be reduced by 10 percent through a “1-for-2” system of attrition, thereby reducing the number of federal employees while allowing the introduction of new talent into the federal service. (could take several years thru attrition)
Consolidate (not cut) agencies and streamline processes to cut costs and improve results in everything from energy permitting to worker retraining to trade negotiation.
http://www.mittromney.com/issues/spending

 

romneys "plan" is to reduce spending, not eliminate. have fun with that.

 

Ron Paul is the man.

Americans aren't tough enough to really experience liberty. He was the real decision maker, whether America was going to remain a free nation or slip into social-fascism. Enjoy!

 

He was able to do it as Governor. No reason he won't be able to as President.

 

America is going to cherish Romney once they get to see the successful businessman in action, and I believe he will win by at least 4 points over the progressive liberal.

 

This guy is a sham. How the hell is he going to reduce spending by eliminating HR3200... healthcare preObama was breaking this country.. now he is going back to a system that was breaking the bank in the first place... nice logic. So he is going increase military spending.. repealing Obama roll backs.. that eliminates just about all his spending cuts. he is also going to reduce government revenues through more deficit spending tax cuts.. again eliminating any savings he garnered at the expense of the most vulnerable.

Only idiots who can ignore simple mathematics can look at this simpletons plans and say they make any sort of sense.

 

How does the government "eliminate spending"? If I am not mistaken, even the Constitution requires necessary spending on the army, navy, etc.

 

Never mind..the Paul bots wont answer any debate on how successful Paul was in implementing any policy goals anywhere in his history..

I just say TERM LIMITS.
Paul would just cut everything....including laws on drugs...Happy days are back again..

 

Paul would not cut anything that requires Congress. They will never side with him just as they didn't during his 30 year run in Congress. You will see the biggest stalemate in the history of America if Paul is elected President.

Paul refuses to compromise one single bit on any issue and you cannot govern this way.

 

Yes, blame that which is not corrupt for the corruption of DC. like blaming the womans actions for leading to being raped.

 

The good part about that is, he does need congress to cut the trillion in actual spending that he wants cut. Then the rest of congress can fall inline or get voted out when they see the following Paul would have after he put his plan into place. Unless the media would still ignore Paul even after he became POTUS.

 

Quite a reach ..even for Bots..How about we say ..Paul's time for retirement has come..
and see if ANYBODY will pick up his agenda ..
crickets ?

 

So your saying that instead of the President negotiating with Congress that you would have no problem with him acting as a King and simply doing what he wanted?

You also are not considering the fact that if Congress wants too, they can reverse any decision Paul makes or put the brakes on it. If Paul were ever try to do an end around on Congress as your suggesting, they would slam him back in total unity. He will accomplish nothing.

Do not forget that if he were to (*)(*)(*)(*) them off then they would fast-track an impeachment and he will be out in weeks.

 

So you don't dispute that DC is corrupt and Paul is not, but throw a red herring in about his age and try to attack me personally. Gotcha

 

Tyat is what falls under the executive power, he has the right to cut their funding if he wants. That is not a king, but someone following the constitution. You make it sound like cutting spending is a bad thing, are you conservative or liberal? I ask cause you sound liberal.

 

Cutting spending on the basis of one man's opinion is not Constitutional. This is why we have 3 branches of government, so that all views are represented and give their input. If one man is deciding the fate of a trillion dollars I'd say that is acting like a King.

I am a far right Tea Party guy myself.

 

Sending money without the approval of the congress is king like. NOT spending it, and not using that money else where, is NOT king like. There is nothing in the constitution about the congress needing oversight on tellig the POTUS that he MUST spend money in his own cabinet. They have no say what the executive branch spends its money on. In other words, the congress could give the POTUS x amount for the DOE, but if there is no DOE to spend money on, the POTUS doesn't have to spend that money. Like saying the Air Force gets X amount for spending on troops or base beutification, doesn't mean it MUST be spent.

 

Ron Paul has promised to cut $1Trillion from the budget in his first year. He can do that with or without Congress. He can eliminate Cabinet level offices without Congressional approval and can close any foreign base he chooses without approval. He could also end the war in Afghanistan. Those actions alone would get him to the $1 Trillion in savings without Congressional approval.

BTW, Congress cannot impeach a POTUS just because he pisses them off.

So much for your 'facts'.

 

amen to that.things wil not change with flip flop Romney in office.He is a white Obama.

 

Two excellent articles out of Talking Points Memo today show how 1. Ending the AHCA at this point will likely crush the health care system completely and 2. Romney's new approach to Health Care would end up making coverage more expensive and dump millions of people from the health care roles completely by encouraging companies to stop subsidizing health care for employees and dumping them all into the individual market where they will have no bargaining power, and those with pre-existing conditions will be unable to purchase health insurance.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/...health-care-system-with-it.php?ref=fpnewsfeed

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/...-plan-to-replace-obamacare.php?ref=fpnewsfeed

 

This historical average over the past 50 years was 20%.

Maybe Mitt can just reduce it to the 22% level it averaged while his role model Reagan did.

What is his plan to get revenues up to those healthy levels?


Requires spending cuts of approximately $500 billion per year in 2016 assuming robust economic recovery with 4% annual growth, and reversal of irresponsible Obama-era defense cuts (more debt)

reversal of irresponsible Obama-era defense cuts? What cuts? I thought Mitt was going to cut spending?

Kick everyone on unemployment out into the streets and cut funding for the neediest.

That's a whopping $32 billion.

OK, lets' see what Mitt is really talking about.


Specified cuts:
32.0 cuts non-security discretionary spending by 5 percent across the board
95.0 Repeal Obamacare ($95 billion over 10 years).
1.6 Privatize Amtrak
0.6 Reduce Subsidies For The National Endowments
0.1 Reduce foreign aid.

Total: $129.3 billion

Dubious unspecified cuts:
100.0 "Empower States To Innovate" whatever the hell that means.
60.0 "Reduce Waste And Fraud' unspecified but with a vague reference to "improper payments"
47.0 Federal salary cuts. Does that include Congress?
$11 billion Davis-Bacon act
$4 Reduce federal work force.

Total: $222 billion.

The grand total for all these cuts, assuming that his numbers are all per year savings (as opposed to figures based on 10 year forecasts, like the Obamacare number), and giving Mitt full credit of all these unspecified cuts he's talking (a big gift) about is about $350 billion. But from that amount, you have to subtract the unspecified increase in military spending he wants.

What's his plan on the revenue side?

•Make permanent, across-the-board 20 percent cut in marginal rates
•Maintain current tax rates on interest, dividends, and capital gains
•Eliminate taxes for taxpayers with AGI below $200,000 on interest, dividends, and capital gains
•Eliminate the Death Tax
•Repeal the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT)

We see the old Republican favorites in there -- eliminate taxes on inheritance so the richest can keep the wealth in their family, eliminate the AMT which puts at least some floor on taxes paid, and of course, more income taxe cuts. 20% across the board. A 20% decrease in the income tax takes about $220 billion out of Govt revenues.

How is this guy anything but a caricature and regurgitation of the same old failed policies of that the Republicans have been selling us for decades.

Promises of unspecified, unrealistic spending cuts, that don't even match up to the tax cuts he's proposing.

But at least Mitt's acting in his own self interest. He and his family will be rewarded very handsomely for these plans while the neediest bear the burden.

Maybe a Mitt-Flop apologist can explain how is this going to help the deficit?

 

Wow.. a post about Romney based in reality. Nice touch using logic and common sense. You did fail to mention that he has told complete fabrications on how he will lower the cost of oil/energy.

 

She also forgot his strategy as governor was to cut income tax, and raise the "hidden" taxes on fuel and sales of items.

 

There was an error in the above post that I did not change before it got locked.

All spending cuts Romney proposes add up to about $350 billion, not $220 billion. Which means that, depending on how much more he proposes to spend on the military, his proposed spending cuts may be a little bigger than his proposed revenue cuts.

But, and assuming he were to actually achieve this, still way short of any significant impact on the deficit.

 

Wasnt there already a study done of the 4 GOP candidates proposals that said all but Pauls plan would still increase the deficit, or debt?