JOSH CLAIMS: Since Sherrod Brown has gone to Washington, more and more Ohioans find themselves living in poverty.

THE TRUTH: The Paul Ryan budget plan would gut funding for programs low-income Ohioans rely on and lead to an increase in poverty and hunger.

1. Josh Mandel has refused to denounce the Paul Ryan budget. [Huffington Post, 10/9/12]

2. The Paul Ryan budget plan would cut SNAP benefits that those living in poverty rely on to feed their families. [Center on Budget Priorities, 4/18/12]

3. The Paul Ryan budget plan would raise taxes on families below the poverty line. [Center on Budget Priorities, 4/18/12]

4. Josh Mandel supports the Republican Cut, Cap and Balance budget, that’s even more radical than the Paul Ryan budget plan. [Plain Dealer, 8/2/2011]

Josh Mandel Said Ryan Deserved Credit For Putting Together A Serious Proposal. In October 2012, The Plain Dealer reported that Josh Mandel, “Does not endorse Ryan’s plan, though he likes parts of it, such as converting Medicaid payments to states into a form of block grant. Says Ryan deserves credit for putting forward a serious proposal.” [Plain Dealer, 10/13/12]

Mandel:  “I Like Parts Of The Ryan Plan But Disagree With Parts As Well.”  In December 2011, The National Review reported “About the budget proposals of Republican congressman Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, he’s equally vague: ‘I like parts of the Ryan plan but disagree with parts as well.’ Mandel promises to put forth specifics next year.”  [John J. Miller Website, 12/2/11; National Review, 12/19/11]

Without Common Exemptions Used By The Middle Class Tax Cut Promised By The Ryan Plan Would Average To A $2,160 Tax Hike. In August 2012, dailyfinance.com stated, “These exemptions aren’t minor. After getting all their deductions, the average family currently pays an effective federal income tax rate of roughly 3.3%, or $1,650. (Though of course, that’s not the full tax rate: the effective total federal tax rate for an average middle-income family is 14.3%). With all exemptions and credits removed, that turns the $3,810 tax bill that Ryan’s plan proposed as a net savings for you into a $2,160 tax hike.” [dailyfinance.com, 8/16/12]

Many Programs Necessary To The Poor And Middle Class Would Be Eliminated In Ryan’s Plan. In August 2012, dailyfinance.com reported, “Unfortunately, though, eliminating tax shelters and other upper-class tax benefits would barely make a dent in the massive revenue cuts Ryan is proposing. To fill that gap, the Bipartisan Policy Center recently pointed out, the tax code would need to eliminate nearly every exemption — including those enjoyed by poor and middle class workers. These include dependent exemptions, child tax credit, education credits, mortgage deduction credits, and other exemptions that bring down the average family’s total tax burden.” [dailyfinance.com, 8/16/12]

The Poverty Threshold In 2011 For A Single Parent With Two Children Was $18,123/Year. [Census.gov]

Under The Ryan Plan The Average Tax Increase For A Family Who Makes Between $10,000 And $20,000 A Year Was $193. [Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 4/12/12]

• $193 Buys 42 Day Passes On Columbus’ COTA Bus Lines. [COTA]

• $193 Buys 137 Loaves Of White Bread In September 2012. [Bureau of Labor Statistics]

• $193 Buys 55 Gallons Of Milk In September 2012. [Bureau of Labor Statistics]

Headline: Ryan Budget Would Slash SNAP Funding By $134 Billion Over Ten Years. [Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 4/18/12]

• Figure: Two-Fifths Of SNAP Households Are Below Half The Poverty Line. [Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 4/18/12]

Cuts In SNAP Due To The Ryan Plan Would Lead TO Increased Hunger And Poverty. In April 2012, The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities stated, “SNAP cuts of the magnitude that the Ryan budget proposes would almost certainly lead to increases in hunger and poverty.  Research conducted by USDA has found that 80 percent of SNAP benefits are redeemed in the first two weeks of the month and 97 percent of benefits are redeemed by the end of the month.  Emergency food providers report that more people ask for help in the latter half of the month, after their SNAP benefits have run out.  A cut of the magnitude that the Ryan budget calls for would mean that a typical household’s SNAP benefits would run out a number of days earlier, placing greater strain on household finances (and on emergency food providers) and significantly increasing the risk of hunger.” [Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 4/18/12]

• SNAP Lifted About 4 Million Americans Above The Poverty Line In 2010, Including About 2 Million Children. [Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 4/18/12]

• SNAP Kept More Children Than Any Other Program – 1.3 Million – From Falling Below Half Of The Poverty Line In 2010. [Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 4/18/12]

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]

Editorial: Neither The Paul Ryan Budget Nor Any Of President Reagan’s 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]