OK, Mitt wins, now what?

The Onion had a telling bit of Satire a week or so ago showing Mitt Romney going nuts trying to figure out (click)  how his economic plans would work if he actually won.

They can’t, of course. Not possible, mathematically. But, what the heck, it’s a slow news day, so, let’s play a game: Mitt Romney wins the election. What happens next?

– He tries to repeal “Obamacare,” and discovers very quickly that seniors will lynch him by his intestines if he brings back the prescription medication donut hole, parents with kids in college will lynch him if he forces their under-26 years old kids off insurance and newspapers threaten to fill their dwindling editions with heart-rending sob stories of children dying from birth defects if he does away with the “no preexisting conditions” and “no lifetime cap” rules.

So he does away with the only part he can get rid of, which is the requirement that everyone get insurance and pay into the system, which means the only people buying insurance are the sick who need it and expect their soaring medical bills to be paid no matter how little they pay in premiums.

National insurance rates soar, anger over dying children soars, and seniors throw their walkers at his limo.

– He pushes through legislation, as promised, to cut marginal income tax rates by 20 percent. Unfortunately, his efforts to tie those cuts to reducing tax breaks for home ownership, charities, medical costs or anything else, bring massive fillibusters from lawmakers who get campaign donations from home builders, charities, medical companies and anything else — which is to say, all of them — so his off-setting cost cutting ends up on the cutting room floor.

Budget deficits soar.

– He “gets tough” with China. His rhetoic upsets an already shaky Chinese economy still trying to recover from a housing bubble’s deflation. China, desperate for cash, cashes in its US Treasury bonds, causing the world market in those to crash as well. The US Government, suddenly unable to borrow money at rates so low that, sometimes, it actually made money instead of paying interest, suddenly can’t sell a bond to save its life.

The world economy crashes, Social Security checks start to bounce, Romney calls his hedge fund friends for advice and is told that he should have done like he did with all his other corporate takeovers and sold sooner.

– The “peaceful” Mitt of the third presidential debate goes away, replaced by the “get tough” Mitt of the primaries. He drops a bomb on Iran’s nuclear facility, then tells Iran that that was just a surgical strike, nothing serious, really they should just sit back and be peaceful and do what we say from now on.

Iran, knowing an act of war when it sees one, closes off the Straits of Hormuz with its fleet of small boats and manages to land a flight of cruise missiles in the middle of Saudi Arabia’s largest oil export port, disabling the machinery for six months. Gasoline prices in the US hit $10 overnight.

OK, fun and games with worst-case scenarios.

The reality is, Mitt’s efforts will end up being filibustered in the Senate, same as Obama’s were. We’ll stagger from one crisis to the next, same as we always do. Nobody will have the stones either to cut a program that saves a significant amount of money — ATK Space Systems anyone? — and nobody will dare raise a tax because, well, of course not.

Mitt will blame it all on the liberals and in four years President Obama, called by popular acclaim out of retirement, takes over for a delayed second term.

This entry was posted in Blogging the Rambler. Bookmark the permalink.

21 Responses to OK, Mitt wins, now what?

  1. Dovie says:

    I do not think it matters very much, substantatively, who wins the presidency. I would really like to see the people who believe this is the final battle of good and evil lose, though, and Mitt’s their man. I would consider it a triumph of reason, pragmatism and the American spirit. If that’s petty, so be it.

  2. RH09 says:

    So, just so I understand correctly, the guy who’s NEVER balanced a budget (or even had one for that matter) is the better choice over the guy who’s ALWAYS balanced his budgets? And even though he’s ALWAYS balanced his budgets, it’s preposterous to believe that his ideas, even though we might not know what they all are, might work? That’s some great common sense, libs.

    • ctrentelman says:

      which budgets has romney balanced? The Olympics? Sure, after a $400 million bailout. And he only managed to make the organizers themselves come out in the black. The federal and state governments spent millions, billions, that were not paid back. Earl Holding got a free $14 million road to Snowbasin out of the deal.

      The state he was governor of? Actually, if Mass is like Utah it is up to the legislature to balance the budget, not the governor.

      Also, just how does Mass — or any other state — balance its budget? By using federal funds and borrowing, the same way the federal government “balances” its budget every year.

      No state really balances its budget, if by “balanced” you mean that income equals outgo with no debt. They all — ALL — get federal funds.

      Interestingly, here is a hard core in the Utah Legislature that feels the bonding the legislature does every year for capitol building is a violation of the state constitutional requirement to balance the budget. They do it every year, however, as well as adding billions in federal funds to the budget for highways and other things.

      So, I repeat: What budget has Romney really “balanced”?

      • RH09 says:

        If it’s all fake balancing as you suggest, why has Obama had such a hard time fake balancing the budget? Clinton fake balanced the budget, and you concede that Romney fake balanced the budget with the Olympics and in the state of Mass. So why is the potus having such a hard time with it if all budgets get fake balanced the same way? (Here comes the “it’s Bush’s fault” response)

        I agree with Glines. This blog post was really about covering yourself in the event of a Romney win after all the posts about Romney peaking too soon and his campaign being a joke.

        • ctrentelman says:

          depends on how you define “balanced”, cupcake.

          You could argue that every federal budget since Washington has been “balanced” because they all — with one or two notable exceptions under clinton and nixon — took in as much revenue as they spent if you count borrowed money as revenue, which the states obviously do, so why not the fed?.

          Iif that is how a “balanced budget” is defined, then Obama has always worked with a balanced budget, since all the bills are getting paid, just a lot of them with borrowed money.

          But if you can’t count borrowed money, how can Utah claim its budget is always balanced? It bonds every year, and bonding is borrowing.

          • ctrentelman says:

            and i’m not “covering myself” after previous posts. Trust me, bubula, I gave up worrying about your approval of these little missives a very long time ago.

            I am flattered you read them, however. Please share with your friends, let them see what a jerk I am. Heck, make my jerkness go viral. I can use the web hits.

          • RH09 says:

            Charles, I don’t think you’re a jerk, I just think you’re a moron (see your own reply above regarding Obama working with a -$16 trillion balanced budget as a reference). If my approval doesn’t bother you, then why the replies referring to me as a “cupcake” and its synonym (really? best you could come up with). I read your posts for the same reason I occasionally watch MSNBC. It’s good for a laugh.

  3. Brent Glines says:

    Straw men, straw men, as far as they eye can see.

    I don’t think the repeal of Obamacare is all that unlikely. According to all the polls I’ve seen, a solid majority of Americans want it repealed.

    The rest of this post goes downhill from there.

    One bright point, Charles. I’m glad to see you are coming to grips with the likelihood of a Romney administration.

    • ctrentelman says:

      what part of “worst case scenario” do you not understand?

      I shall be perfectly happy after Mitt wins. The budget will be balanced, that 12 million jobs will show up overnight, a spirit of happyness and entrepreneurialism will sweep the land and nobody will ever get sick.

    • Michael Johnson says:

      He’s pointing out a fact. Conservative because of cognitive and emotional issues will vote against their own best interests. If you win, you get screwed blue.

  4. Tom says:

    Great piece Mr. “T”, thanks.

    If Romney gets elected and does even a little bit of what he proposes in the middle east, we will be stuck for another 20 years in endless culture wars over there, wars that will make us look back longingly at the good old days of just fighting a two front war in Iraq and Afghanistan. There are 70 million or so Iranians – most of whom are favorably disposed toward the US even though their leaders are not. That will change to 70 million of them hating us if we were to actually bomb them, 70 million more people in the world who want us destroyed.

    If anyone really wants to get a glimpse of the truth about Romney and his mythical business career of creating jobs, just get a load of this piece by David Stockman – Ronald Reagan’s budget guy.


  5. ctrentelman says:

    It is amazing to me the way politics in this country has demonized Iran, the only country in the Middle East where the people held spontanious ceremonies of remembrance after 9-11.

    Romney only “created” jobs that were mostly already there. Most of the companies Bain “improved” were helped by removing overhead — pensions, benefits and so on. Employees were given the “freedom” to fund their own 401K, for example, instead of a defined pension. The 401K is turning out to be the goose that laid the lead egg for all but a very few.

    As far as romney winning, nobody knows, but the current portents are interesting: http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/25/oct-24-in-polls-romneys-momentum-seems-to-have-stopped/?hp

  6. Neal Cassidy says:

    It is wrong to call Romneys vision an economic plan. It is more like a war on poverty. Poverty will win.

  7. Ryan says:

    The President will not be able to do much in his second term other than support the initiatives he began in his first term. You have to understand how long it takes to form and execute public policy. The second term of a presidency is really worthless, if the first term was a learning experience and not a culmination of a life’s work in serving others. Pick the person who has spent his life serving, staying productive and loving this nation.

  8. kent coleman says:

    According to Robert Reich:

    5 Reasons why the Romney-Ryan Economic Plan Would Be a Disaster.

    1.More unemployment through austerity measures.

    2.Taking from the poor to give to the rich.Higher federal taxes on lower income taxpayers,slashing medicade,food stamps,and children’s health care in order to give up to a $500K tax cut to millionaires and billionaires.

    3.Turns Medicare into vouchers that won’t keep up with the rising cost of health care, and leaving them at the mercy of private insurers.By contrast,Obama’s Affordable Care Act saves money on Medicare by reducing payments to providers such as hospitals and drug companies.

    4.Add money to defense spending while cutting spending on education, infrastructure , and basic research and development.

    5.The Romney-Ryan budget doesn’t even reduce the federal budget deficit. While adding to military spending, giving tax cuts to the rich,and stifling economic growth by cutting spending too early,the plan would push pubic debt to over 175% by 2050.

    He adds”no wonder Mitt Romney doesn’t want to talk about his budget until after the election!”

    • RH09 says:

      You mean the Obama-supporting, Democrat Robert Reich? Thanks for the unbiased report, Kent.

      • kent coleman says:

        Tell me why Romney would be so much better.

        This whole Obama four years has been one filibuster after another by the repugs, and the script seems to be stolen from Mel Brooks movie Blazing Saddles,
        by the Banksters to put a black man in the whitehouse, blame him for the last hundred years,put another repug in and continue the slaughter of the world and the poor and soon to be poorer middle class.

        I’m not in favor of Obama but Romney is a nightmare waiting to happen.

        When caught by the continuing latest Romney lie ,
        “716 billion stollen by Obama”,
        Romney’s staff stated they weren’t going to be deterred by fact checkers.

        Watching the Daily Show with Jon Stewart is the most honesty your’re going to get in politics.

  9. Pingback: Utah Jazz vs. Dallas Mavericks, Oct. 31, 2012 | Lets Talk Houses

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>