Our country faces substantial challenges. While there will always be differences about the policies needed to surmount them, we can only achieve success through an honest debate based on accurate representation of facts. Sadly, truth is in short supply in the Republican Party.
Mitt Romney says that more jobs have been lost during President Obama’s tenure than any president since Hoover. Newt Gingrich accuses Obama of being the “food stamp president.” Both candidates ignore the fact that Obama inherited an economy in worse condition than any time since the Depression. It is dishonest to hold Obama accountable for the 3 million jobs lost during the first six months of his administration, the disastrous legacy of Bush’s fiscal mismanagement, while not recognizing the economic recovery for which his policies are responsible. Since June 2009, Obama has added 1.2 million jobs to the economy, more than half of what Bush added during his entire eight year tenure.
Romney recently claimed that “I’m not terribly worried about the very wealthiest in our society. They’re doing just fine.” So why does his proposed tax plan, as analyzed by the non-partisan Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, afford the wealthiest 1% tax breaks that are three times larger, in percentage terms, than the bottom 80%?
Republicans say that creating jobs is their top priority, but stood in the way of a payroll tax break for 160 million workers (that Moody’s Analytics estimated would add 750,000 jobs) because it was to be paid by a small tax increase for the wealthiest Americans. Their alternative was to lay off 10% of the federal workforce, which would only exacerbate the problem. And lest one assume that Republican administrations lead to smaller government, the facts prove otherwise. President Reagan increased nonmilitary payroll by nearly one-quarter million. George W. Bush increased it by 53,000. Under Obama, the federal workforce is smaller than it was when Reagan took office, in no small part due to the Democratic administration of Bill Clinton, which lowered the federal payroll by 380,000.
We need to evaluate the Republican storyline carefully; it’s apt to be more fiction than fact.
Mitt Romney says that more jobs have been lost during President Obama’s tenure than any president since Hoover. Newt Gingrich accuses Obama of being the “food stamp president.” Both candidates ignore the fact that Obama inherited an economy in worse condition than any time since the Depression. It is dishonest to hold Obama accountable for the 3 million jobs lost during the first six months of his administration, the disastrous legacy of Bush’s fiscal mismanagement, while not recognizing the economic recovery for which his policies are responsible. Since June 2009, Obama has added 1.2 million jobs to the economy, more than half of what Bush added during his entire eight year tenure.
Romney recently claimed that “I’m not terribly worried about the very wealthiest in our society. They’re doing just fine.” So why does his proposed tax plan, as analyzed by the non-partisan Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, afford the wealthiest 1% tax breaks that are three times larger, in percentage terms, than the bottom 80%?
Republicans say that creating jobs is their top priority, but stood in the way of a payroll tax break for 160 million workers (that Moody’s Analytics estimated would add 750,000 jobs) because it was to be paid by a small tax increase for the wealthiest Americans. Their alternative was to lay off 10% of the federal workforce, which would only exacerbate the problem. And lest one assume that Republican administrations lead to smaller government, the facts prove otherwise. President Reagan increased nonmilitary payroll by nearly one-quarter million. George W. Bush increased it by 53,000. Under Obama, the federal workforce is smaller than it was when Reagan took office, in no small part due to the Democratic administration of Bill Clinton, which lowered the federal payroll by 380,000.
We need to evaluate the Republican storyline carefully; it’s apt to be more fiction than fact.
