'Evidence vs. Ideology' and 'Romney’s Lying Machine'

'Evidence vs. Ideology' and 'Romney’s Lying Machine':
Laura D’Andrea Tyson:

Evidence vs. Ideology in the Medicare Debate, by Laura D’Andrea Tyson,
Commentary, NY Times: When formulating public policy, evidence should be
accorded more weight than ideology, and facts should matter... The ... Romney
campaign has been deliberately misrepresenting President Obama’s Medicare
record.

Mitt Romney characterizes the $716 billion of Medicare savings over the next 10
years, contained in the Affordable Care Act, as President Obama’s “raid” on the
Medicare program to pay for his health care program. This fear-mongering is
simply untrue. These savings result from reforms to slow the growth of Medicare
spending per enrollee – there are no cuts in Medicare benefits. ...

Both Governor Romney and Representative Paul D. Ryan have promised to repeal the
Affordable Care Act and with it the reforms behind the $716 billion in Medicare
savings (although Mr. Ryan duplicitously counts the savings from these reforms
in his deficit-reduction plan). Medicare beneficiaries would ... lose the benefits..., and they would be forced

to pay higher premiums and co-pays as a result of faster growth in Medicare
costs.

President Obama’s health care plan is not a raid on Medicare; it is

an investment in a stronger system. If the Affordable Care Act had not met
this standard, the AARP would not have endorsed it. ...

Now Mr. Ryan has espoused – and Governor Romney has embraced — a proposal to
transform Medicare into a premium support system. ... There is no evidence that
such a system would control Medicare spending more effectively than the current
Medicare program strengthened by Affordable Care Act reforms. Indeed,...the
C.B.O.

has concluded that ... such plans

would drive up total health-care spending per Medicare beneficiary...

A voucher system would do little to control the growth of health care costs, but
it would shift their burden onto Medicare beneficiaries in the form of higher
premiums and reduced care. Cost-shifting should not be confused with cost
containment. ...

A “serious” deficit hawk committed to saving and strengthening Medicare, not one
whose primary goals are repealing health-care reform and cutting taxes for the
wealthy, would base his Medicare plan on the evidence. ...

Robert Reich is astounded at the Romney-Ryan campaign:

Romney’s Lying Machine, by Robert Reich: I’ve been struck by the baldness of
Romney’s repetitive lies about Obama — that Obama ended the work requirement
under welfare, for example, or that Obama’s Affordable Care Act cuts $716
billion from Medicare benefits. ...

Every campaign is guilty of exaggerations, embellishments, distortions, and
half-truths. But this is another thing altogether. I’ve been directly involved
in seven presidential campaigns, and I don’t recall a presidential candidate
lying with such audacity, over and over again. Why does he do it, and how can he
get away with it?

The obvious answer is such lies are effective. Polls show voters are starting to
believe them... Romney’s lying machine is extraordinarily well financed. ...
Romney’s lying machine is working.

But what does all this tell us about the man who is running this lying machine?
(Or if Romney’s not running it, what does it tell us about a man who would
select the people who are?)

We knew he was a cypher — that he’ll say and do whatever is expedient, change
positions like a chameleon, eschew any core principles.

Yet resorting to outright lies — and organizing a presidential campaign around a
series of lies — reveals a whole new level of cynicism, a profound disdain for
what remains of civility in public life, and a disrespect of the democratic
process.

The question is whether someone who is willing to resort to such calculated
lies, and build a campaign machine around them, can be worthy of the public’s
trust with the most powerful office in the world.

The press is completely dropping the ball in its duty to inform voters
(surprise!). If stories consistently opened up with something along the lines of
"The Romney campaign continued to make lies and misleading inferences the
centerpiece of its campaign today...," this would stop. (It would also be worth
noting, I think, that making lies about the other side the most prominent
feature of a campaign is a pretty good indication that the candidate has no new
ideas of his own to present. But simply pointing out the lies -- and the
massive number of flip-flops of convenience -- would go a long way toward fulfilling the duty of the press to inform voters rather than mislead them by presenting false claims as legitimate debate.)


DIGITAL JUICE