Over the weekend, Mitt Romney struggled hard to achieve his life goal of “most dishonest politician of all time.” He continues to obfuscate about what his tax plan would actually do, and he took a shockingly dishonest position on health care with respect to pre-existing conditions on national TV, only to have statements from his campaign walk it way, way back in the next few hours.
First, health care. You know how, throughout this campaign, Romney’s number 1 priority has been to “abolish” Obamacare, “root and branch”? Well, not so fast. See, Romney told America on Meet the Press this weekend that he wants to keep the popular stuff like ensuring that people with pre-existing conditions can get insurance, like letting people keep their adult children on their insurance policies, and like enabling individuals to buy insurance rather than going through their employers (i.e., insurance exchanges, a key part of Obamacare).
Surprised? I was too. But here he is:
Now, guess what? That’s not actually what he meant. Subsequent statements from his campaign, emailed around to wonky reporters, “clarified” that Romney was just restating the position that he has long held, which is that insurers can’t exclude people with pre-existing conditions, as long as they maintain “continuous coverage.”
OK, two problems. First, that’s been the law since 1996 under HIPAA, so it’s really not a plan at all. Second, that “plan” excludes something like 89 million Americans. The point of the Obamacare reform was to protect Americans with pre-existing conditions who are now unable to obtain affordable health insurance. Romney’s plan clearly does not do that. But he didn’t mention that on TV. I wonder why?
Of course, as Romney well knows, the health insurers will not go along with real pre-existing condition protection without an individual mandate. Which is the deal struck in Romneycare in Massachusetts. Which Romney has disavowed as a national plan. The dishonesty is simply staggering. It’s really unfortunate that, at that juncture, ace interviewer David Gregory apparently accepted what Romney said at face value and moved on to Medicare. One hopes this gets thrown in Romney’s face in a big way at the debates.
Next, taxes. It’s been pointed out time and time again that Romney absolutely refuses to say what he actually wants to do to the tax code. Will he repeal the home mortgage deduction? Cut way back on the charitable giving deductions? ’Cause that’s where the money is. He simply won’t say. Again, the prevarication is mind-boggling. The Obama campaign put together a nice connection of clips from the weekend news shows.
Meanwhile, the most sophisticated polling analyst out there, Nate Silver of 538, says that “the polling movement that we have seen over the past three days represents the most substantial shift that we’ve seen in the race all year, with the polls moving toward Mr. Obama since his convention.” So, expect Team Romney to repeatedly press the panic button, with the dishonesty continuing to fly at ever-increasing velocity. The big question is whether the media is able to keep up with it.
Discuss
18 Comments . Leave a comment below.Anyone else think they’ll go after Earned Income Tax Credit? That would seem to fit in well with the reverse-Robin-Hood GOP’s nasty ideology.
with the “47% who don’t pay taxes.”
Take the mortgage deduction too while they’re at it.
16% of the population lives in poverty, and roughly 20% of the population is collecting Social Security. There’s 3/4 of that 47% number – are they really so heartless as to expect to collect taxes from folks living below the poverty line and seniors on a fixed income?
just my sarcastic self.
And Christopher is correct.
but… are you saying that none of the 16% of the population that is in poverty collects Social Security? Or are you double counting?
But then again, he’s not counting those who don’t pay a federal income tax but do pay any of the following:
* FICA tax
* property tax
* sales tax
* state taxes
and so forth.
At least that’s the inference I make when I hear this claim because they do seem to suggest that almost half the population has no skin in the game and is mooching off the other half. I’ve also heard it claimed they even count children in their population, of which 47% supposedly pay no taxes, and of course that only refers to federal income tax anyway. Anytime someone complains that 47% of the population pays no taxes we should throw it back at them with, “What are your plans to raise those people into an income bracket where they would be liable for federal income tax?”
It is 47% of the “households” that pay no FEDERAL income tax. This still pay State, property, FICA… taxes.
(to be clear, I don’t hope that Romney is POTUS) but…
my understanding is that a person’s *second* home mortgage interest is tax deductible. Somebody please correct me if I’m wrong on this one. The idea that working Americans in apartments subsidize the purchase of somebody else’s vacation home is sickening.
If Romney were to go after that particular deduction, I’d give him an “attaboy.”
Two homes, up to $1 million of debt or so.
I think the mortgage deduction should go, along with any other loophole out there (can you tell I would love a flat tax after a certain minimum is made?)
Although, I think they should be phased out… 90% mortgage interest deduction this year, 80% next, 70% the one after…
All loans before October 13, 1987 are grandfathered from the $1,000,000 debt cap.
I believe there is also an interest deduction phase out at $250,000.
For second homes. Phase it out.
For primary homes, I’d do it very differently, though I admit it wouldn’t pass Congress. I have no problem subsidizing bedrooms for actual residents, a kitchen, and a bathroom or two. I do have a problem subsidizing a finished basement, guest bedrooms, bonus rooms, indoor car parking, the pool in the back yard, the value on the land (not the house), etc.
So, my proposal goes like this:
First dependent: 700 sq ft
Each add’l dependent: 100 sq ft
By “dependent” I include the filer and the spouse, so three kids and two parents means 1200 square feet. Now, if that family lives in a 2400 square foot home, great! They get 1200/2400 == 50% mortgage interest tax deduction. If they live in a 1600 sq ft home they get 1200/1600 == 75% mortgage interest deduction. We’d keep the $1M maximum, or perhaps even drop it to something lower, though not with the intent of catching very many folks on the “high” side of the line. Just those who gold plate their 1200 sq ft condo’s toilets.
The square feet of a home is well known in nearly all cases, at least to within a reasonable number of sq ft. I like this because it’s a simple formula, scales with larger families, scales with cost of living, discourages McMansions, discourages sprawl, discourages obscene amounts of money on heating and cooling and extra televisions, etc.
Again, I don’t expect it to pass anytime soon…
How much will they charge for renewal?
comes this little gem from Comrade Robinson:
Happy days.
I ran a large self-insured ERISA group plan, and allowing pre-existing conditions will, over time, induce insolvency. Perhaps under the ACA’s mandate it will work, but allowing pre-EX admission to normal health insurance pools ISN”T MATHEMATICALLY POSSIBLE.
Ex: one healthy couple eligible for overage in our ERISA group plan but who elected not to join became pregnant THEN tried to join the plan. At the time, a pregnancy cost the plan around $18,000. When we learned that the couple joined the plan AFTER they were expecting, we dropped their coverage. We also had the right to sue them for reimbursement of all payments made to providers.
If you allow people with pre-existing conditions to join, you run the risk of their jumping in and jumping out of the plan to cover their medical expenses after the fact. That’s not insurance.
It’s like applying for home insurance 24 hours before a hurricane hits your neighborhood.
Well, that’s the point, isn’t it? The ACA is the only way to ensure that everyone, including those with pre-existing conditions, can get affordable insurance. So what Romney said in the interview is shockingly dishonest. His campaign’s later “clarifications” are pretty much the opposite of what he said on national TV. And please, let’s not pretend that Romney simply misspoke. He knows this stuff inside and out, having worked on MA’s law.
But the only way that could get the votes.
« Blue Mass Group Front Page
Sat 25 May 12:44 PM