E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
PALM BEACH, Fla. — Mitt Romney went well beyond his standard stump speech at a closed-door fundraiser on Sunday evening, and offered some of the most specific details to date about the policies he would pursue if elected.
Karen Bleier / AFP - Getty Images
GOP presidential hopeful Mitt Romney floated the idea of eliminating the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the cabinet-level agency once led by the candidate's father.
In a speech to donors in the backyard of a private home here, the former Massachusetts governor and presumptive GOP presidential nominee outlined his plans to potentially eliminate or consolidate federal agencies, win back Latino voters and reform the nation's tax code.
And even Ann Romney, the subject of a national debate last week over the role of women in the workplace, was more direct than usual. She sounded like a political tactician when she described a Democratic consultant's criticism of her decision to be a stay-at-home mom as "an early birthday gift."
Romney went into a level of detail not usually seen by the public in the speech, which was overheard by reporters on a sidewalk below. One possibility floated by Romney included the elimination of the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Cabinet-level agency once led by Romney's father, George.
"I'm going to take a lot of departments in Washington, and agencies, and combine them. Some eliminate, but I'm probably not going to lay out just exactly which ones are going to go," Romney said. "Things like Housing and Urban Development, which my dad was head of, that might not be around later. But I'm not going to actually go through these one by one. What I can tell you is, we've got far too many bureaucrats. I will send a lot of what happens in Washington back to the states."
Asked about the fate of the Department of Education in a potential Romney administration, the former governor suggested it would also face a dramatic restructuring.
"The Department of Education: I will either consolidate with another agency, or perhaps make it a heck of a lot smaller. I'm not going to get rid of it entirely," Romney said, explaining that part of his reasoning behind preserving the agency was to maintain a federal role in pushing back against teachers' unions. Romney added that he learned in his 1994 campaign for Senate that proposing to eliminate the agency was politically volatile.
At that time, Sen. Ted Kennedy ran ads against Romney — then a political neophyte — accusing him of being uncaring for saying he wished to eliminate the agency.
Romney told the audience here tonight (along with the Weekly Standard in an interview in early April) that that experience remains fresh in his mind. It's contributed to his caution in publicly naming federal agencies and programs he would eliminate or dramatically curtail.
Romney's wife Ann also spoke briefly, where she described her role in a controversy over women in the workplace and Republicans' efforts to make inroads with female voters.
Mrs. Romney acknowledged Republicans' deficit at present with female voters, and urged the women in attendance to talk to their friends, particularly about the economy. She also discussed the criticism she faced this week, and her pride in her role as a mother.
"It was my early birthday present for someone to be critical of me as a mother, and that was really a defining moment, and I loved it," Mrs. Romney said.
Gov. Romney went further in engaging the so-called "war on moms" that followed in the media — upon which his campaign has been aggressively fundraising — calling it a "gift" that allowed his campaign to show contrast with Democrats in the general election's first week.
Romney also went into greater detail than he has on the campaign trail in describing how he would maintain the progressive structure in the tax code after implementing his 20 percent across-the-board tax cut.
Democrats have argued that Romney's tax proposals would disproportionately help the wealthy, but on Sunday, Romney identified specific loopholes and deductions for the wealthy that he would eliminate in order to both finance his tax cut, and ensure that the nation's top earners face the same tax burden they do today.
"I'm going to probably eliminate for high income people the second home mortgage deduction," Romney said, adding that he would also likely eliminate deductions for state income and property taxes as well.
"By virtue of doing that, we'll get the same tax revenue, but we'll have lower rates," Romney explained. "The nice thing about lower rates is that small businesses not get to keep a larger share of what they're earning and plow it back in to hire more people and expand their business."
Romney covered much of the ground he does in his standard stump speech before a crowd of several dozen donors, who were gathered to contribute to his new general election "Victory Fund." But Romney also offered, over fried chicken and snapper, a simpler way of understanding his economic policies.
"I'm asked — how do you boil it down, how do you encapsulate this into a campaign message: Two things, jobs and kids," Romney said, explaining that restarting job growth and preserving a better future for the next generation were the campaign's guiding principles.
Though the general election campaign has only begun in earnest — and the policy proposals floated by Romney on Sunday evening were far from formal platform items — the former governor's remarks marked the campaign's acute sense of what awaits them in the coming months.
That sense was represented in Ann and Mitt Romney's discussion of how they might win back women. The former governor also addressed how he might make strides toward winning back Hispanic voters, another crucial voting bloc with whom he and other Republicans lag, according to recent polls.
Predicting that immigration would become a much larger issue in the fall campaign, Romney told his audience, "We have to get Hispanic voters to vote for our party," warning that recent polling showing Hispanics breaking in huge percentages for President Obama "spells doom for us."
Romney said the GOP must offer its own policies to woo Hispanics, including a "Republican DREAM Act," referring to the legislative proposal favored by Democrats that would offer illegal immigrants a limited path to citizenship, to give Hispanic voters a real choice between parties.
Romney nonetheless predicted that, by November, the economy would trump immigration as a driving issue for Hispanic voters, and he vowed also to remind the Hispanic community that, despite promises of comprehensive immigration reform by Obama, Democrats ultimately fell short in passing legislation in their two years in control of Congress and the White House at the start of the president's term.
Romney also described his media strategy going forward, including his views on so-called "earned media," and how the campaign might pair surrogates with complimentary news outlets.
He said his campaign had been well-covered by Fox News, but that Fox was watched by "the true believers," and that he knew he would have to reach out to a broader audience in order to win over independents and women voters that will decide the election in November. He painted a picture of a media landscape in which liberal voices won out on television, but conservatives were strongest online.
"We are behind when it comes to commentators on TV. They tend to be liberal," Romney said. "Where we are ahead or even is on twitter and on the Internet."
Leave a Comment:
Explaining to Conservs is like taking a puppy over to a pile of poop and pushing his or her nose in it and smacking his or him until they understand.
Ugly but it has to be done
BadpPole
Explaining to Liberals is like taking a puppy over to a pile of poop and pushing his or her nose in it and smacking his or him until they understand.
Ugly but it has to be done
slob,
Now you see why conservs and liberals are stupid, they keep putting their noses in the wrong places!
come on slob lets start a new party called
"not stupid conserv or lib party"
We believe in non of the above!
Fox and Msnbc will be tuned out!
slobON,
Explaining to you is like taking a puppy over to a pile of poop and pushing his or her nose in it and smacking his or him until they understand.
Ugly but it has to be done!
I think I have figured out why there is no bi-partisanship in politics these days...
"What I can tell you is, we've got far too many bureaucrats. I will send a lot of what happens in Washington back to the states."
Good idea Romney. Eliminate yourself first with your BS spin on how things will automatically fall into place in this Country by your "Re-leveraging Government Dept" plan? I guess that means States take on more responsibility but we still pay Federal Taxes to the Government. And since most of the depts that used our tax money will be closed or consolidated by you, the bulk of the excess will be used to give you and your WH Rupuke buddies Quarterly or Bi yearly raises!!!!
Are you people that support Romney all brain dead!!!!
Yes they are!!!! Look who they put in office before Obama. That was a real genius studdering Bush.
Romney talks about lowering taxes on business owners so they can have more money to hire people. My question is-why should they? The only reason to hire more people is to take care of the increase in business. Until people have more money to buy from these businesses, there will be no increase and no need to hire. The extra money the wealthy get from these tax breaks will be invested in overseas bank accounts and investments, not hiring.
That is exactly why Trickle Down economics doesn't work. You and I are the Job Creators. Jobs are created when we buy more goods and services. If we stop buying goods and services, those companies most affected (loss of sales) will lay off employees regardless of what their tax rate is.
Yes. We have a consumer based economy, not a jobs based economy. It doesn't matter what kind of tax breaks the hoarders get. Ooops, I mean it doesn't matter what kind of tax cuts the "job creators" get. The way to fix our economy, is to increase minimum wage to something above the poverty level. Putting money in the pockets of people who don't already own everything will boost consumption and force hiring, simply to restock the shelves.
This would also increase tax revenue by moving most of the country into a higher tax bracket. Those who used to get all of their taxes back as refunds, I think that's 48%, would start paying a share. The reduced spending on social programs, like food stamps, low income housing and subsidized day care, would decrease the deficit, as well. I call it Foundation Economics. You don't build a palace from the minarets, down. You build it from the bedrock, up.
How can this guy have the balls to run for this office when he hides his money in off shore accounts. That in itself is a red flag and as UNAMERICAN as it gets, it suggest when I screw the American Public and destroy the American institutions and way of life I can flee to another country and my money is safely tucked away in another country. If only Hitler was this smart to hide money elsewhere the world would really be different and not in a good way.
This cult leader of the Mormon Church is up to no good. He has Michele Bachman hawking his cause nothing this insane freak has ever said was ever truthful. Romey will be another Bush he will start wars to further his cultist Religion at the expense of American Armed Forces here comes WWIII with this out of touch freak.
Furthermore why would someone with the personal worth this guy has made from destroying American businesses spend Hundreds of Millions of Dollars to run for a job that pays Two Hundred Thousand Dollars a year. Something really stinks about this jacka$$.
Read the book of Mormon it reads like someone was using great psycotropic drugs to make that storey up beware of this monster he is a disease waiting to kill our country.
What Romney didn't talk about was Defense. He believes, like Paul Ryan, that we aren't spending enough on Defense. We are in debt up to our eye balls, we spend 9 times more than China of defense and more than the rest of the world combined. No area of our economy has increased anywhere near as much as Defense spending over the past 12 years. We have 11 megasized aircraft carriers when no other country on the planet has more than 1. We own the skies when it comes to aircraft..yet we're spending 100's of billions more over the next 10 years on the new F-35. Are we preparing for an attack by alien's? Good luck with that! The Tax Reform Romney's talking about (20% across the board) is smoke and mirrors. There's no way they will cut out the loopholes for the rich to make it revenue neutral. Hell, the Republicans are already blocking eliminating the oil subsidies for Big Oil. You know, for financially struggling companies like Exxon-Mobil (rolling eyes). Romney is pinning all of his job growth on giving the richest another huge round of tax cuts.
Everyone needs to remember that Chuck Todd's wife is an Obama and Democratic operative so his bias is always there!
Remember Chuck Todd's wife is a Obama and Democratic operative so his bias is always at work!
Romney likes Paul Ryan's "Path to Prosperity" version 3.0 2013 which is the House Republican's 2013 Budget proposal. Read it..I have..there's absolutely no doubt who's prosperity that document is talking about. And it ain't yours or mine. 90+ pages of mostly vague BS. Then read the Simpson-Bowles budget proposal. Commissioned by Obama and written by a bi-partisan committee. 60 pages (Ryan's took 30+ more because of all the personal attacks on Obama he wrote in his). It is a very very specific plan to fix our economy and the cuts are across the board. For tax reform, they eliminate huge tax breaks for the rich and capital gains and dividends are treated as ordinary income. Far superior plan. And I highly doubt that Chuck Todd or his wife create any bias over those two documents.
Romney doesn't just "like" it. He thinks it's simply "marvelous".
I wanted to point out a couple of things. Romney's high-end tax cuts are so steep that you couldn't cover the cost of them if you got rid of every loophole and deduction. They would still be getting a tax break:
"In theory, one could maintain the effective tax rate on the super-rich while lowering rates by reducing their deductions and other tax expenditures. But do the numbers add up?
Under current law, which includes the Bush tax cuts, the top 1% in 2011 paid an effective income tax rate of 20.3 percent of their total cash income. Repealing the alternative minimum tax (a Romney proposal) would reduce their effective rate by at least 0.4 percentage points.* A 20 percent cut in income tax rates would knock another 4 percentage points off their tax rate. Repealing the estate tax is worth another 0.3 percentage points of cash income, for a total tax cut of 4.7 percentage points. That works out to a 6.8 percent increase in after-tax income.**
What about eliminating exclusions and deductions? There just aren't enough of them to balance those tax cuts. According to Burman, Geissler, and Toder (2008), eliminating every tax expenditure other than the tax preferences for investment income (which Romney specifically wants to keep) would reduce after-tax income for the top 1% by 6.2 percent. Because Romney would lower tax rates by 20 percent, killing all those tax expenditures -- state and local tax deduction, mortgage interest deduction, employer health plan exclusion, deduction for charitable contributions, everything -- would only reduce after-tax income for the top 1% by 5 percent.*
That's a lot of numbers. The bottom line is that if, like Mitt Romney, you want to cut tax rates by 20 percent, eliminate the estate tax, and eliminate the AMT, it is arithmetically impossible for the top 1% to pay anything close to their current effective tax rate."
On the women thing, I think it's going to shock pundits when Romney's poor performance begins to close. For starters, economic data won't be as good as it was earlier this year. Secondly, the contraception debate won't be as salient. Thirdly, some people will rally his way amid the back and forth. Fourthly, the polarization and the back and forth will bring them back. You all will be shocked by how close the race is.
But, it will narrow. I think the President might be able to squeak it out, and if he does women will provide him his margin.
There are also a couple of weaknesses to the jobs and kids message. One could argue their austerity hurts children. For instance, Romney cuts Medicaid steeply, as well as other programs that benefit children.
Aren't you more than just a little suspicious when the goal of Romney's Tax Reform is to end up with everyone still paying the same amount in taxes (revenue neutral)? I mean, if that's the end product then why go through the exercise of reform. Because nothing has changed. What's the purpose of lowering the tax rate on the 1% and then eliminating loopholes so they end up paying the same amount in taxes. Is it just me or does anyone else see this as moronic? All you're doing is moving the cheese from one bucket to another. Waste of freakin' time.
"It was my early birthday present for someone to be critical of me as a mother, and that was really a defining moment, and I loved it," Mrs. Romney said."
Her really early present was all the hired help that raised those children while she shopped and played mom games with other millionaire moms.
Of course Romney wont tell everyone his plans and which departments he'll get rid of, he knows if he does he will NEVER get elected. Don't give the idiot a chance, he already screwed Mass., ask anyone who lives there.
Nothing surprising here. Basically what he is preaching is firing a lot of people from various departments by eliminating their place of employment; that is much the same as what his cronies in Big Business have done by shipping jobs away from their points of origin to other places and Other Countries. (Can you say CHINA?)
Though his proffered suggestion of removing the tax relief from "The Wealthy" on their second, third etc. homes looks good on paper (How Many Homes does Romney have?), there is something like that already in the works at State level, nothing new. CONSIDER Also that this will affect those of the lower income level of the Wealthy; those he is trying to reach such as Start-Up business owners etc.. Those of his tax bracket either have paid-off ownership or 'selective' mortgages that are sometimes held as tax write-offs and easily paid off.
As a PS: Largely ignored regarding his wife, the Stay-at-Home Mom; how many servents were there to assist her and did she ever have to worry about having enough money to feed them without going to work? Just how many Social Events did she have to give up to 'Stay at Home' and did she ever have to postpone a Doctors or Dentists visit because of her budget? THESE are the things a Stay-At-Home Mother has to cope with.
Very revealing comments by Mitt. First of all, his comments about the elimination of Dept. of Housing and Urban Development. The states would be forced to scale back any transportation and housing projects which would probably then be handled by private corporations i.e. Bain Capital and hedge fund managers for more profits. THERE IS NO WAR ON MOMS!! That is just something the GOP has cooked up in the past to divide women and bring more conservative women to their cause. It does not really get to the real issue which is A WAR ON WOMEN"S HEALTH. As far as education, what Mitt is promoting in all reality privatizing schools AND ELIMINATING TEACHERS UNIONS (and other unions as well) by pushing the issue of education back to the states so ALEC can assist better in this endeavor. It is a bunch of BULL that the liberal voices have won TV. He is not telling the truth. Watch any News Show on the main channels and you will hear them voicing the conservative views. Romney and his GOP cohorts continue to LIE about this. As for the tax code reform, this is another lie. This across the board 20% tax rate is NO different than Cain's 9-9-9 plan. All Romney is saying is the GOP LINE which DOES NOT WORK. Look what happened when Bush applied these principals. This country is a democracy NOT a libertarian society where the wealthy benefit and the rest of us do not. We must stop them at the polls in November and stop buying the products from companies that support ALEC. They DO NOT have our best interest in mind. Fool me once. Shame on you. Fool me twice shame on me. We must do our due diligence and educate others to do the same and vote, so that we do not have a repeat of the Bush years or the elections of 2010 where the GOP/Tea Party won. Europe is starting to revolt against the conservatives who are pushing austerity while the wealthy become wealthier. We must do the same here. Otherwise, the middle class is at risk.
Mitt Romney plans to eliminate the second home mortgage deduction, so why not eliminate the mortgage deduction all together? Romney does plan to eliminate Medicare, he just uses words that will not offend or scare elderly Floridians.
It is so disgusting what little choice we have in this election. If the Republican party hadn't become the Christian Taliban I probably could have supported them. If the Dems have any common sense they will remember 1972, whoever holds the center wins. The extremists on both sides will destroy this country. The president made fun of Clinton as an incrementalist, perhaps he needs to get to know his own country as we are just that. As for the house and senate, if they are an incumbent I am voting against them. Amazing that only in the last year have they finally passed a law prohibiting insider trading. Does the house and senate even understand what scum they are and how they are thought of by the american people.
It is hard to believe liberals spend so much time reading about Romney, or else not reading but just love to make comments against him. At least when he is President, his tax rate will drop below his secretary....like odumba's, according to his recent tax filing. Buffet....what a red herring, seems everyone but odumba and Buffet knew he was lying through his teeth about the "Buffet" rule. At least everyone that has made out their own taxes knew it was a lie. Like taxing the RICH, or as liberals think, just make them pay their fair share. $400 millionaires, paying 2 million each in taxes, won't let the government pay entitlements for 2 1/2 weeks. Another liberal lie exposed. 55% corporate tax rate, HIGHEST ION THE PLANET, and the jobs will flow offshore like urine out of a boot. Greece's boots are empty..........take the hint.
Like any other politician, he will say what it takes to get into office...He is all about helping the rich, I don't see him helping the middle class and poor people....I don't like Obama, but he IS the lesser of the two evils....I don't think our country would head in a good direction if Romney became president.....He believe all women should work (except for his wife of course) and have their children be raised by strangers....
"I'm going to probably eliminate for high income people the second home mortgage deduction," Romney said, adding that he would also likely eliminate deductions for state income and property taxes as well.
He didn't say I AM GOING TO...which means he won't...he wants to help the rich, not everyone else.
Will someone please tell Mitt that firing people isn't a jobs plan.
He plans to make the Department of Education smaller or eliminate it all together. How does that fit into his support women and mothers?
Mitt's policy,...keep up the GOP "war on women",...
In a speech regarding welfare, Romney said he wants to force stay-at-home mothers who receive assistance out into the work force,...even if "they have a child of just two years old", because they need the "dignity" of working.
So, Mitt,....which is it ? Do you feel that being a stay-at-home parent is hard job that deserves our respect and dignity,....or is that just if you are rich and priveleged like your wife ?
The GOP are a bunch of self-serving hypocrites who do everything to favor the wealthy and corporate interests.
Prepare to work longer and harder for less if we dare vote Mitt into office.
Strange it had to be a "closed" event for his proposed policies to come out. We shall see if Lincoln nailed it with: "But you cant fool all of the people all of the time"' My question is simply does he really believe what he is claiming are now suddenly solutions for America, when 3 GOP Administrations have proven that these same policies have only weakened the fabric of our society by subsidizing the top 2% accumulation of more wealth though tax cuts and massive Federal deficits, which we, the 98% will have to spend years paying down?
All the GOP has done with its failed policies is create a massive wealth divide, as the rich now own over 40% of all American wealth, and Romney is right in there demanding more for himself, and his fellow one percenters with even more tax cuts on top of restoring the Bush Tax cuts. Then he wants to paralyze the Nation's ability to put people back to work with jobs programs by stripping away tax revenue streams by massive Federal spending cuts, then attempting to balance the budget by cuts in entitlements, medicaid, welfare and unemployement, to name a few.
He goes on and lies to us claiming Obama has targeted women's jobs, as they have a much higher unemployment rate, but he forgets the GOP blocked Obama's attempt to fund States tax shortfalls, and monetary needs, along with funding for education and rehiring teachers. What Romney fails to mention is that most women are employed in the public or education sector as staff, clerks,secretarial, and teachers. When state revenues fall, women get laid off, when local government income falls, teachers get laid off.
So, just who has caused the massive layoffs of women? The Bush meltdown. Who has continued the unemployment of women by blocking Federal funding of state and local government to make up for the revenue shortfalls, and rehire state and local workers and teachers? THE GOP!!!
Once again, Romney and the GOP play fast and loose with the truth.
No solutions, no answers, just more failed trickle down economic policy to create more wealth in the rich.
The Republican DREAM Act; a tiered system where you are always a second-class non-citizen. That worked really well in South Africa, where it was known as Apartheid. The South Africans figured out how flawed a system that was almost 20 years ago and eliminated it.
The republicans should have stuck with their original DREAM Act, SB 1545, The Title, Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors Act of 2003, introduced in 2003 by republican senator Orrin Hatch of Utah and co-sponsored by 13 republican senators.
In 2008 President Obama was elected and fully supported the orignal DREAM Act, providing a path to full citizenship for children brought to the United States as minors through no fault of their own. But even though The original DREAM Act is their idea and their legislation, the republicans say now they won't pass it until certain criteria are met, including a major push in enforcement. So, the Obama administration complies. They deport more illegal immigrants in 3 years than Bush did in 8, they step up border patrols, including the use of drones. In other words, the Obama administration does everything the republicans say they want done to pass THIER OWN bill. And then, the senate republicans filibuster and won’t pass the bill in December 2010.
Yeah, Willard, you go for it with the new republican DREAM Act.
Notice how he never said anything about taxing capital gains as ordinary income. Even David Stockman thinks that should be done. After all the conservatives god Ronald Reagan did that. Oh wait we can't do that. Look at all the jobs that loophole created.
I guess Willard really believes his own lies, and his contempt and arrorgance in believing that women are stupid and can't see what the legislation republicans are actually propsing and passing in republican controlled state-after-state and in the House of Representatives, is stunning.
Women's health and reproductive rights being descimated. Equal pay and violence against women laws are under attack, and the currently introduced republican budget descimates programs middle and working class women depend on for themselves and their families like Medicare, Medicaid, Head Start, child care, K-12 education, job training, Pell grants, farm programs and services for the elderly while providing massive tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans.
Too late Willard, your party overphayed, overreached and exposed their women, middle and working class agenda too soon.
In Romney's world, women vote the way their menfolk do. It's going to be difficult for his handlers to keep him from repeatedly exposing this core belief between now and November.
I believe our property tax credit was already eliminated. At least ours in Illinois was a couple of years ago. And Ann needs to realize that birthday gift may not have been as good as she thought. Because she is looking at it through a rich persons eyes. That is the problem Ann. She should have just said you never worked outside the home a day in your life. And the struggles you have had. Well think of what they would be like with no money and no insurance. You would be lobbying for health insurance. I saw a blurb where Romney was going to host SAturday Night live. Oh no another Palin want to be. The Democrats need to develop a slogan, pull the string and let them go. I believe that this has already been one of the funniest campaigns ever with statements the republicans made but thought they weren't funny. It looks to me like that is continuing. And 1. We don't need another set of copresidents Ann and Mitt and 2. no Mitt you don't get to fire everyone. It sounds like that is what you are firing up to do. So far the republicans have just been working to defeat themselves. And most missed the gaffe of Romneys son about the stay at home dads. That is okay just like stay at home moms. In whose world? In real America we call those deadbeat dads.They stay home while the mom works.
I will not vote for someone who is going to take away my property tax deduction and give it to some millionaire who doesnt need it, trickle down is a huge lie why doesnt the gop get this???
You folks can express your dislike of Romney all you want, but his two salient points about overly-big government (people forget that Obama has ballooned the size of the Federal government out of sight) and the need for massive income tax reform is very "on the mark."
I would suggest Romney--if he does win the election--do the following:
1. Aggressively audit EVERY Federal government department for bureaucratic overlap, agency bloat and unneeded/obsolete regulations and use the audit results to cut down the size of government possibly as large as 25-30% immediately, with an eventual goal in four years of approaching 45%. And suggest that state and local governments do the same.
2. Massively overhaul the income tax system to something akin to what Steve Forbes proposed in 1996: a no-loophole 17% flat-rate income tax where the only "loophole" is a very generous initial earned income (wages and pensions) to protect lower-income wage earners and retirees. This would free up HUNDREDS of billions of dollars per year for more productive activities, encourage savings and capital investments staying in the USA, and allow us to kick out most of the tax lobbyists and their corrupting influence out of Washington, DC.
Ray, your first statement is false. In fact, net federal employment has risen under Obama less than any recent presidency.
I do agree though that every large program be scrutinized, 45% though is unrealistic I think. Keep in mind that the largest parts of the budget are SS, Medicare, defense and interest. Those are the areas where money can be found.
You should vote Ron Paul, not Romney.
Paul Ryan's comment that President Obama "has doubled the size of government since he took office" has been rated "Pants on Fire".
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/apr/10/paul-ryan/paul-ryan-barack-obama-has-doubled-size-government/