FACT CHECK: Josh Mandel Supports A Radical Budget That Would Force Deep Cuts Onto Medicare & Social Security

News

FACT CHECK: Josh Mandel Supports A Radical Budget That Would Force Deep Cuts Onto Medicare & Social Security

JOSH CLAIMS: He wants to protect Medicare and Social Security for our seniors.

THE TRUTH: Josh Mandel supports a plan even more extreme than the Ryan Budget Plan called “Cut, Cap and Balance” that would make devastating cuts to Medicare and Social Security and weaken the economy overall.  

1. Josh Mandel signed the Cut, Cap and Balance Pledge [Cutcapbalanceact.com]

2. Cut, Cap and Balance would subject Medicare and Social Security to deep reductions and the AARP opposed it for that reason. [Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, 7/16/11; AARP Letter, 7/21/11]

3. Cut, Cap and Balance would cause the loss of 700,000 jobs. [Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 7/16/11]

Mandel Signed Cut, Cap, and Balance Pledge.  Mandel was listed as a candidate that signed the Cut, Cap, and Balance pledge. [Cutcapbalanceact.com]

Mandel Favored Cut, Cap And Balance Even Though It Couldn’t Pass The Senate.  In August 2011, the Cleveland Plain Dealer reported “Mandel, a Republican, favored an approach called Cut, Cap and Balance — which could not pass in the Democrat-controlled Senate.” [Plain Dealer, 8/2/2011]

Center for Budget and Policy Priorities: Cut, Cap and Balance Would “Inexorably Subject Social Security and Medicare to Deep Reductions.”  In July 2011, the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities wrote “Talking points that the legislation’s proponents circulated on July 15 seek to foster an impression that the measure would protect Social Security and Medicare.  Such an impression would not be accurate.  The legislation would inexorably subject Social Security and Medicare to deep reductions.” [Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, 7/16/11]

Center On Budget And Policy Priorities: Cut, Cap And Balance “Would Thus Cause The Loss Of Roughly 700,000 Jobs In The Current Weak Economy.” According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities “The ‘Cut, Cap, and Balance Act’ would require cuts totaling $111 billion immediately, in the fiscal year that starts 75 days from now, despite a 9.2 percent unemployment rate.  These cuts would equal 0.7 percent of the projected Gross Domestic Product in fiscal year 2012 and would thus cause the loss of roughly 700,000 jobs in the current weak economy, relative to what the number of jobs otherwise would be.” [Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 7/16/11]

Editorial: Cut, Cap And Balance Is “Both Simplistic and Economically Destructive.”  In a July 2011 editorial, the Evansville Courier-Press wrote “The proposal is both simplistic and economically destructive.” [Scripps Howard News Service Editorial, 7/5/11]

AARP Opposed Cut, Cap And Balance Because It Did Not Shield Social Security And Medicare From “Arbitrary Reductions” In Spending Under Mandated Balanced Budget Amendment. In a July 2011 letter to Senators, AARP CEO Addison Barry Rand wrote, “The Cut, Cap and Balance Act requires that a balanced budget amendment to the United States Constitution be transmitted to the states as a pre-condition of increasing the debt ceiling.  Social Security and Medicare, which are not excluded under the balanced budget amendment, would therefore be at risk for arbitrary reductions under the constitutional amendment, and as such, AARP is opposed.” [AARP Letter, 7/21/11]

Editorial Headline:Spending cap bill is a political charade” [Star Tribune, 7/20/11]

Editorial: Neither The Paul Ryan Budget Nor Any Of President Reagans Budgets Would Have Met The Standards Set By Cut, Cap And Balance.  In a July 2011 editorial The Minneapolis Star-Tribune wrote “The Cut, Cap and Balance bill calls for following Ryan’s budget prescription over the next 10 years — gradually reducing caps on annual federal spending from 22.5 percent of economic output to 19.9 percent. Currently, federal spending hovers around an unhealthy 24 percent of gross domestic product (GDP).  But the bill also endorses a balanced budget amendment that, if approved by the states, would cap annual spending at around 18 percent of GDP. This constitutional cap would trump the Ryan plan, which now wouldn’t pass muster, or any other congressionally imposed caps. The cap is also substantially less than called for in other credible deficit plans. The Simpson-Bowles commission recommended a 21 percent GDP cap, for example.  Just for comparison, President Reagan’s budgets didn’t fall below 21 percent of GDP.”  [Star Tribune, 7/20/11]