This NYT editorial makes an important connection. Back when Gov Romney said he wasn’t “concerned about the very poor” I cut him some slack because what he meant was: we have safety net programs to catch them (full disclosure: I did criticize him for policies that would tear holes in that net). In that same interview, he also said he wasn’t worried about the rich—“they’re doing just fine.”
But then the Gov has to go and strongly endorse of Rep Paul Ryan’s budget. This is a budget that shreds the safety net, including Medicaid, food stamps, Pell grants, and more—62% of its cuts ($3.3 trillion over 10 years) come from low-income programs. Tens of millions of the poor and near-poor would lose benefits.
And then Rep Ryan turns around and uses some of those savings to cut taxes on millionaires by $265,000 ($394K if you include the Bush tax cuts, which his budget makes permanent).
As I’ve said before, it’s as if these folks looked at America and concluded that the problem is that the poor have too much and the rich have too little. Which is, of course, the exact opposite of what the Gov claimed: he valued the safety net and didn’t see that the rich needed further help.
Now, according to the NYT, the Gov is “very supportive” of the House R’s budget:
“It’s a bold and exciting effort and it’s very much consistent with what I put out earlier.”
Yes, re consistency. Bold and exciting? Well, I guess that depends which income percentile you’re in.
Ryan’s so-called budget is nothing more than a cynical attempt to head off any meaningful improvement in the economy. He knows that the Senate would never approve it and certainly Obama would veto it. It was never intended as a serious piece of legislation and is nothing more than political grandstanding.