Romney Changes Colours but the President Remains Black throughout the Campaign

It is shameful and even pitiful to see how Mr. Romney has changed his colours throughout the campaign. He is like a chameleon. He dances to whatever tune is playing and does so with impunity. Can you trust a President who does not know his own mind? I think not.
President Obama has been consistent. He stood his ground and told people what he believed in and why.
Unfortunately, Mr. Romney appears to want power and will do anything, say anything to get it.  It's all about him.
America you give President Obama four more years to solidify his gain otherwise you are going to be in deep  s...t.
VOTE OBAMA FOR FOUR MORE YEARS. HE IS A PRESIDENT YOU CAN TRUST FOR HE TAKES CARE OF THE WEAKEST LINK IN THE CHAIN WHICH IS WHAT IS NEEDED TO MAKE THE ECONOMY STRONGER.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/10/24/1149319/-Romney-s-record-in-Massachusetts



Wed Oct 24, 2012 at 06:42 AM PDT

Romney's record in Massachusetts

by ybrutiFollow
Romney claims that as governor of Massachusetts he was able to work well with a Democratic legislature. To refute this, I have written a short letter to the editor that might be useful for people writing their own letters. The information comes from a column submitted to the Denver Post by a resident of Massachusetts, Marsha Mirkin, whom I've quoted below the squiggle. I received her column as a viral email with the heading: He will say whatever is necessary to get elected.

My letter:

Romney poses as the successful former governor of Massachusetts, but he left office after one term with a 31% approval rating, having entered the office with a 61% approval after seeming to be a fiscal and social moderate. Contrary to his claim that he got along well with the Democratic legislature, he vetoed proposed legislation a record 800 times, and most of his vetoes were overriden, sometimes unanimously. For example, he vetoed a budget amendment to stop contracting with companies that outsourced state work to other countries. He vetoed emergency contraception. He vetoed a bill to fund stem cell research which as a candidate he had favoured. He vetoed bills that would have strengthened preschool education. From his record in Massachusetts, we can expect that as president, Romney would revert to the "severely conservative" he has called himself.

The viral email:

Here I am, a resident of Massachusetts listening to my former Governor speak convincingly and with seeming conviction at the Denver debate. I was startled by my déjà vu experience and by the assumptions held by my out-of-town friends about Mr. Romney’s governorship. So, as an editor and author of articles and texts about social and political contexts, I wanted to reach out to my distant neighbours in Colorado and share my understanding of Mr. Romney’s governorship and the implications for the Presidency. Massachusetts is known as a liberal state, but we often vote for Republican governors, and the three governors who immediately preceded Mr. Romney were Republicans. Mr. Romney was a one term governor who left office with a 31% approval rating, the 3rd lowest in the entire country. What does our experience in Massachusetts say to the country?

Mr. Romney claims to have experience reaching across the aisle. Maybe he did do some reaching, but not much of it went toward the Democrats. In his first two years of office, he vetoed legislation at more than twice the rate of Republican predecessor Governor Weld. Governor Romney had a record 800 vetoes (most of which were overturned, sometimes unanimously). One example is when the legislature provided a budget amendment to stop contracting with companies that outsource state work to other countries. Governor Romney vetoed the provision. This meant that he supported outsourcing jobs at the expense of U.S. workers. He also started a huge campaign to unseat Democratic legislators, but failed and ended up with even fewer Republican seats than before he took office.

Governor Romney correctly claims that Massachusetts rose to #1 in education — but it was based on former Governor Weld’s education reform plan. Governor Romney moved in the opposite direction--he vetoed bills that would have strengthened preschool education.

However, the issue is not so much how he voted, but that Mr. Romney won the governorship by presenting himself in one way, as a social and fiscal moderate (some saw him as a social progressive), and by the end of his single term, he had acted in an entirely different way. He said during his campaign that he favoured stem cell research and then vetoed a bill to fund it. He argued for a lower minimum wage than the state legislature ended up passing (over his veto). He vetoed a bill funding hate crimes prevention, and took back money approved by a former Republican governor for a bullying prevention program. He denied all requests for commutations and pardons, including one from a soldier serving in Iraq whose was convicted at age 13 for a BB gun incident. He vetoed emergency contraception. He raised many fees in my state — even quadrupling the gasoline delivery fees.

Governor Romney certainly approved some pieces of legislation that I did support but that does not change a major problem: Mr. Romney re-created himself and changed his positions during the first Presidential debate in your city because he must sound more moderate in order to win the independent vote. After that, all bets are off. We in Massachusetts know all about that. We elected a governor expecting him to be one thing and then he did something totally different and got on the national stage. He entered the governorship with a 61% approval rating and left with an abysmal 31% and with many of us scratching our heads and wondering whom we elected. The difference between then and now is that you have Mr. Romney’s speeches and positions from this past year and the contradictions during the debate. You can get nonpartisan information from factcheck.org. And, you now know what he was like in Massachusetts. So, I hope the country doesn’t have to go through what Massachusetts went through. Regardless of your political beliefs, this constant turning into something we didn’t vote for is no way to run a state, never mind a country.

Marsha Mirkin, Wellesley, MA

Professor of psychology

Lasell College in MA

Thank you President Obama You Did us all Proud

President Obama you made your point last evening. You stood your ground, you took time to explain to the American people the difference between you and Romney and what is at stake without the hype and drama as some people were pushing you to do.

America has to stop dreaming in Hollywood and know that voting for your next President is not a movie. It is real life.

On the other hand Mr Romney was his usual bullying self. His behaviour was anything by gentlemanly. He bullied the interviewer for more time, he pointed his fingers at Obama actually calling him a liar when he said he announced it was a terrorist attack in the Rose Garden.  For a moment I thought he would have pushed President Obama.  I think that kind of a behaviour is unbecoming for a person who wants to be President. It is clear that Mr. Romney will be quick to take American into another war if the chance presents itself.  For a former priest he does not seek peace.

President Obama's final response was powerful. Romney was very weak.  He might have fared better if he told the American people how he would raise all the money he intends to raise, how he would create millions of jobs, bring down the debt, lower taxes for everyone - where in tarnation would he get the money to do that?  I can also get up and say I would do this that the the other but when wait till I get into office you would see?  That is the most ridiculous proposition I have ever heard of a contender.  This man has thinks he is acting in a Hollywood movie or something.

I can sum up Mr. Romney in one sentence having paid attention to what he has been saying. He does not have a plan for the poor and middleclass America but he does have a solid plan for the rich people in American to become even richer.

On the other hand President Obama's plan is to continue on his plan to solidly put America back on the map, to be a Present of all America and to ensure the country no longer rides on the backs of the middleclass. Vote America, Vote Obama. A Vote for Romney means you want to return to the days that Mr. Bush left behind when everyone was running helter skelter as the economy bled as it has never bled before. Mr. Obama has a solid plan but Mr. Romney has no plan and as the saying goes
when you fail the plan you plan to fail

Tonight's Debate

Many of President Obama's supporters and would be supporters are waiting to see him knock out Mitt Romney but I urge the President that he does not have to stoop to cheap tactics get the facts straight, tell it to the people once, tell them again and again.
It will not help any of them to have this back and forth rant like kids on a ball field or sparring for fun. This debate is not about looking good even though many want their president to be a lot of show and little substance.
This is the fight for survival for your daily bread and to feed and clothes your family. It is not a game. If people bury their hand in Hollywood fantasies, you will soon wake up with the collection man comes knocking at your door at 2:00 a.m. in the morning and you have no way of paying your bills because you have just lost your job. That is the Romney scenario.
You know where you are going with Barack Obama, he has laid it out for you clearly but Mr. Romney's plans are still being cooked and the ingredients change every day depending on whose coming to dinner.

I urge people do not vote on the strength of who looks or sounds better on TV - listen to the words of these people. Take notes, be critical and then decide to vote for President Obama - four more years - there is no better option at this time.

Even Fox News has called down Mitt Romney's new Maths

Romney does not know of what he speaks about Vote a man who does, Vote President Obama. Let Obama finished what he started.  If given a change he will make history as the President who like a David struck the heart of Goliath and slayed him. He will turn the economy around.
Americans, put your vote where your livelihood is, do not gamble with a change at this stage of the game. You will be turning back to what Obama picked up at the beginning of his tenure. It was not a pretty sight.
Many of the same people who are now saying vote Romney, did not believe that America would stand on its feet again so quickly but it did, so you must give credit to the man who brought it about and his incredible team.
Don't be fooled, don't risk your house again, your job and your children's future. Romney is aching to fight another battle using your children?
It should be mandatory for war mongering politicians must send their own children to war - maybe then they would not be so quick to want to go to war. Our children are dying for nothing. Stop all war, stop the war in the Middle east. America has no hope in hell to win any war within the Middle East. The war may subside for a little while but as soon as the soldier leaves, the people revert to their own ways. The solution to end any way in the Middle east must come from the people not from America.


http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/even-fox-calling-out-romney-dishonesty?

Remember the Economic Collapse before Obama

Do not let political hype confuse you with what's at stake in this election. With Obama you know where you are headed - it is a slow but steady climb. Obama has made great gains for America during his four years of very challenging leadership even without the support of the Republicans. Go with what you know, the economy is yet too fragile to make any rash decisions.
A Romney win is a win for Wall street and the rich. Obama win is for middle class America and for the people on the lower end of the spectrum.
You want to be a footstool for the rich to climb higher? Then vote for Romney and that's what you will get.

With a Romney Win America will face what they always feared - Communism

Do you ever wonder why some people hate the rich? It is precisely for the like of multimillionaire David Siegel of Westgate Resorts who threatened to fire all his staff if Obama wins? That's sounds like communism to me, surely a dictator whom you have to bribe with a vote to keep your job. How shameful?  I think the Republicans and their straight-laced Romney who has more hot air than a hot air balloon are running scared. The Republicans do not have a viable plan to take America anywhere but down for the poor and up for the rich who will have more ammunition to stick it to the poor like this man is doing right now.

Do you want to be slaves to rich people? After all who made them rich? They became rich because they have exploited the poor - paying pittance, no benefits, no medical insurance nothing but pocket the harvest of poor people's labour?  Do you want that kind of a government?  Then better sign up now in some soup kitchen.

Obama is the guy to help America out of the mess left to him by the Republicans? Do you forget so easily? Do you not remember what happened four years ago? How many of you lost your homes and everything you worked so hard for because of the greed of the rich folks?

America, do not be fooled by this shiny new Republican toy?  It is not the real thing. You are part of the 47% Republicans do not care about. Romney and Siegel are two of a kind - they want to win by any means necessary even if it means taking away poor people's choice of whom to vote for.

You have to vote Obama for four more years so that he can solidify the gains that the Republicans cannot derail if and when they take office.

Do not forget what we have been through. Remember the hard times and now the good times you are enjoying under Obama. He works hard for ordinary folks, he wants you to have the ability to see a doctor when you are sick and weak. VOTE OBAMA, down with ROMNEY and his rich cronies.

Obama Working Hard for the People - Talk is cheap getting the work done is hard

The improvement lent ballast to Mr. Obama’s case that the economy is on the mend and threatened the central argument of Mitt Romney’s candidacy, that Mr. Obama’s failed stewardship is reason enough to replace him.
Employers added a modest 114,000 jobs last month, the Labor Department reported on Friday, but estimates for what had been disappointing gains in July and August were revised upward to more respectable levels.

Unemployment fell to 7.8 percent from 8.1 percent, crossing what had become a symbolic threshold in the campaign. Mr. Romney was deprived of a favorite line of attack, mocking the president for “43 straight months with unemployment above 8 percent.”
  http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/06/business/economy/us-added-114000-jobs-in-september-rate-drops-to-7-8.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=

Don't let Political Hype lead you astrary - Look at the facts Americans you are intelligent people!

Obama spending binge never happened


Rex NuttingCommentary: Government outlays rising at slowest pace since 1950s

May 22, 2012
Rex Nutting, MarketWatch


PrintWASHINGTON (MarketWatch) — Of all the falsehoods told about President Barack Obama, the biggest whopper is the one about his reckless spending spree.

As would-be president Mitt Romney tells it: “I will lead us out of this debt and spending inferno.”
Almost everyone believes that Obama has presided over a massive increase in federal spending, an “inferno” of spending that threatens our jobs, our businesses and our children’s future. Even Democrats seem to think it’s true.
But it didn’t happen. Although there was a big stimulus bill under Obama, federal spending is rising at the slowest pace since Dwight Eisenhower brought the Korean War to an end in the 1950s.



Even hapless Herbert Hoover managed to increase spending more than Obama has.



Here are the facts, according to the official government statistics:



• In the 2009 fiscal year — the last of George W. Bush’s presidency — federal spending rose by 17.9% from $2.98 trillion to $3.52 trillion. Check the official numbers at the Office of Management and Budget.
• In fiscal 2010 — the first budget under Obama — spending fell 1.8% to $3.46 trillion.
• In fiscal 2011, spending rose 4.3% to $3.60 trillion.
• In fiscal 2012, spending is set to rise 0.7% to $3.63 trillion, according to the Congressional Budget Office’s estimate of the budget that was agreed to last August.
• Finally in fiscal 2013 — the final budget of Obama’s term — spending is scheduled to fall 1.3% to $3.58 trillion. Read the CBO’s latest budget outlook.
Over Obama’s four budget years, federal spending is on track to rise from $3.52 trillion to $3.58 trillion, an annualized increase of just 0.4%.

There has been no huge increase in spending under the current president, despite what you hear.
Why do people think Obama has spent like a drunken sailor? It’s in part because of a fundamental misunderstanding of the federal budget.

What people forget (or never knew) is that the first year of every presidential term starts with a budget approved by the previous administration and Congress. The president only begins to shape the budget in his second year. It takes time to develop a budget and steer it through Congress — especially in these days of congressional gridlock.
The 2009 fiscal year, which Republicans count as part of Obama’s legacy, began four months before Obama moved into the White House. The major spending decisions in the 2009 fiscal year were made by George W. Bush and the previous Congress.
Like a relief pitcher who comes into the game with the bases loaded, Obama came in with a budget in place that called for spending to increase by hundreds of billions of dollars in response to the worst economic and financial calamity in generations.
http://articles.marketwatch.com/2012-05-22/commentary/31802270_1_spending-federal-budget-drunken-sailor

President Obama's hard work has paid off in lowering Unemployment

America will not see as hard working honest a president as President Obama and if they choose to elect Mitt Romney which I hope they don't then what they get is what they deserve. It will be very difficult.

I urge Americans not to forget the road they just travelled which came about under the Bush Administration. It took guts, courage and integrity to pull America out of that deep hellish hole they were in. Things are looking up now, thanks to President Obama, don't change a good thing. Let President Obama solidify his gains rather than have it destroyed by a self-serving politician who is there only for the very rich and not ordinary Americans. More than 70% of Americans falls within that 47 % that Romney does not care about. Think about that.

Do not let the so-called lacklustre performance of President Obama deter your resolve to give him five more years. Americans need to grow up and stop expecting a performance bordering on entertainment when serious matters such as an election is underway.  We want our politicians to sing, dance and show-off. The only think that Romney showed off in my estimation is his disdain for poor people and the under privileged whom he thinks are not worth his time and don't pay taxes.

We need a President for all America and that President will be a good one who takes care of the weakest link in the chain because that is how strong the country is. Four more years for Obama to bring America out of the Woods.

http://www.alternet.org/economy/right-wingers-invent-hilarious-excuses-soft-pedal-why-unemployment-has-fallen-under-8?akid=

Mitt Romney's Speech - A Deconstruction

http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/10-most-shameless-romney-debate-lies-debunked?akid

10 Most Shameless Romney Debate Lies -- Debunked


Your conservative relatives should see this.

October 4, 2012

US President Barack Obama (right) speaks during his debate with Republican Presidential candidate Mitt Romney (left), in Denver, Colorado, on October 3. Romney will ride a surge of momentum from the first White House debate onto the campaign trail, while

Like this article?Join our email list:Stay up to date with the latest headlines via email.

The verdict is in: Mitt Romney handily won last night’s debate, and did what he needed to do to have a fighting chance at winning the election. But what he didn’t do, predictably, was tell the truth.
Romney’s debate performance was chock full of lies, recalling his running mate’s address to the GOP convention, which was also chock full of lies. Hopefully, just as Ryan’s address was dissected and debunked by some media outlets, Romney’s claims are as well, so the debate can move to substantive issues instead of stylistic ones.

Here are ten of Romney’s fact-challenged claims from last night:
1. An ‘Unelected Board’ Controlling Your Health Care


Despite President Obama trying to push back on this lie, Romney made this claim a few times last night. Obamacare, according to Romney, “puts in place an unelected board that's going to tell people ultimately what kind of treatments they can have.” In reality, as the Associated Press points out, the board that is tasked with bringing down Medicare costs is prohibited from “rationing care, shifting costs to retirees, restricting benefits or raising the Medicare eligibility age. So the board doesn't have the power to dictate to doctors what treatments they can prescribe.” This Romney claim also hearkened back to Sarah Palin’s lie that Obamacare created “death panels,” which was a straight up lie.

2. A Bipartisan Record
Romney referred to his alleged “bipartisan” record in Massachusetts as governor during the debate. But what’s the real story on this? ABC News calls the claim “not quite factual.” Indeed: Romney’s health care plan was enacted with the help of a Democratic legislature. But in general, the body was “frustrated” with Romney “because he wanted to govern like a ‘CEO’ and ‘didn’t pay heed to the legislature and they resented that,’” according to the Massachusetts Taxpayer Foundation’s Michael Widmer.
3. Dodd-Frank Labels Banks as ‘Too Big to Fail’
One contrast between the candidates that emerged during the debate was over Dodd-Frank, the weak Wall Street reforms and regulations passed after the 2008 financial collapse. Romney wants to repeal Dodd-Frank, and part of the reason why is his claim that the bill designates banks as “too big to fail” and therefore gives them “a blank check.” But as ThinkProgress notes, this is far from the truth: “the law merely says that the biggest, systemically risky banks need to abide by more stringent regulations. If those banks fail, they will be unwound by a new process in the Dodd-Frank law that protects taxpayers from having to pony up for a bailout.”



4. Obamacare Leads to Loss of Healthcare



Governor Romney claimed that the passage of the Affordable Care Act will lead to 20 million people losing health insurance. He based this claim on a Congressional Budget Office report. But according to PolitiFact, Romney “cherry picked” the CBO report and mislead viewers on why people would “lose” coverage.



PolitiFact’s final verdict on the claim is: “That number is cherry-picked, and he’s wrong to describe it as only including people who ‘like’ their coverage, since many of those 20 million will be leaving employer coverage voluntarily for better options. Romney also ignores that under the status quo, many more people today ‘lose’ coverage than even the highest, cherry-picked CBO estimate. We rate his statement False.”
5. The Failure of the Obama Economy
Romney hammered Obama on the economy’s performance over the past four years. One claim Romney made was this: “[We have] 23 million people out of work...The proof of that is that 50 percent of college graduates this year can't find work.”
But here’s the AP breakdown of the facts on this claim: “The number of unemployed is 12.5 million, not 23 million. Romney was also counting 8 million people who are working part time but would like a full-time job and 2.6 million who have stopped looking for work, either because they are discouraged or because they are going back to school or for other reasons.”

And on the college graduate claim, Romney was also wrong. Back to the AP: “A Northeastern University analysis for The Associated Press found that a quarter of graduates were probably unemployed and another quarter were underemployed, which means working in jobs that didn't make full use of their skills or experience.”
6. Obamacare Cuts Billions From Medicare
This was one of Romney’s favorite attack lines last night: the notion that the Affordable Care Act is siphoning off funds from Medicare. The specific claim is that $716 billion was cut from Medicare because of the Affordable Care Act. In reality, this claim is highly misleading. What the number refers to is money that is saved “primarily through reducing over-payments to insurance companies under Medicare Advantage, not payments to beneficiaries. Paul Ryan’s budget plan keeps those same cuts, but directs them toward tax cuts for the rich and deficit reduction,” ThinkProgress notes.
7. Gas Prices Increase
Romney said that “gasoline prices have doubled under the president. Electric rates are up.” This is true--but to blame it on the president is highly misleading. Gasoline prices have little to do with individual policies carried out by a president. Instead, as the Associated Press states, “Gasoline prices are set on financial exchanges around the world and are based on a host of factors, most importantly the price of crude oil used to make gasoline, the amount of finished gasoline ready to be shipped and the capacity of refiners to make enough to meet market demand.”
The AP also skewers Romney’s claim on electric rates going up: “Retail electricity prices have risen since Obama took office — barely. They've grown by an average of less than 1 percent per year, less than the rate of inflation and slower than the historical growth in electricity prices. The unexpectedly modest rise in electricity prices is because of the plummeting cost of natural gas, which is used to generate electricity.”
8. Health Care Costs Rising Under Obama
Romney’s made this statement on the campaign trail--and if it was wrong then, it’s wrong now. Last night, Romney claimed that “health care costs have gone up by $2500 a family.”

But FactCheck.org was on this false claim back when Romney used it on the campaign trail in September. Their take: “Romney says health insurance premiums have gone up $2,500 under Obama. The actual increase has been $1,700, most of which was absorbed by employers and only a small part of which is attributable to the health care law.”
9. Oil and Gas Production Increases Only on Private Land
The former Massachusetts governor said last night that “all of the increase in natural gas and oil has happened on private land...Your Administration has cut the numbers of permit and licenses in half.”
But ABC News says Romney is playing loose with the facts. Data from the Bureau of Land Management shows that “the number of drilling permits on federal lands approved during the fiscal years President Obama has been in office has decreased somewhere between 20 and 37 percent compared to the years before he became president - not the 50 percent Romney claimed.”
10. No Tax Cuts for the Rich

To fend off the perception that he’s only concerned about the wealthy, Romney made sure to emphasize that his economic plan would not lower tax rates on rich people.

Think Progress has the details on that claim: “If Romney were to actually implement his plan to reduce tax rates by 20 percent while eliminating tax deductions in order to pay for it, taxpayers with more than $200,000 would certainly see a tax cut. But everyone else — 95 percent of Americans —will see their taxes increase.”
Alex Kane is AlterNet's New York-based World editor, and a staff reporter for Mondoweiss. Follow him on Twitter @alexbkane. .

Post Mortem on first Debate

Even though many people want to say Mitt Romney made a better impression because he looked fresher than President Obama, that alone should give President Obama the winning edge. Mitt is not carrying a precarious country on his shoulders, he has every right to be upbeat. He is travelling light. President Obama on the other hand, while criss-crossing the country, trying to explain to the American people what his plans are in crystal clear language, keeping Americans safe in the face of looming war, and  taking care of his own family at the same time, he is in the race for an election. How much can a man take and still be upbeat.
However, the President is youthful and athletic, there's nothing that a good night sleep would not cure.
In fact, I believe that the President won that debate. I believe he was deliberately low key, he did not want to put frills on something that is so important to poor people, old people and people with pre-existing conditions. He wanted to make sure that they heard what he said above the hype. I think I got a better understanding of how important Obamacare is for the middle-class and poor people, sick people. The rich don't care - they have enough money to order plastic surgeries for their dogs, to send their pets to pet hotels, what do they care, what do Mitt Romney care.

Even though Mitt Romney want to fool poor and middle class people he cares for them here his proposal for schools.  He said that people should be able to send their children to the better schools. If you live in a poor area and the school is bad, how could you afford to send your child outside his neighbourhood. Mitt just do not get it. He just does not understand the lives of ordinary people because he is fortunate to have money.  We do not need a president who only seeks to enrich the rich and hope that that money will trickle down to the poor. What does trickle down is just that - a trickle.

I am going to return to the debate again but for now, don't let Mitt Romney deceive you people, give Obama another year, you know what you are getting, you know where you are going. Change course now and America goes underground.

Give President Obama another term he deserves it, he has worked for him, he is an honest man.

Vote for President Obama - He is working hard for Americans

Romney is working for those on Wall Street, big business and rich folks, not like you and me.

Mitt Romney's Real Agenda

If you want to understand Romney's game plan, just look at what Republicans have been doing in Congress

by: Tim Dickinson



Mitt Romney

David Calvert/Getty Images

It was tempting to dismiss Mitt Romney's hard-right turn during the GOP primaries as calculated pandering. In the general election – as one of his top advisers famously suggested – Romney would simply shake the old Etch A Sketch and recast himself as the centrist who governed Massachusetts. But with the selection of vice-presidential nominee Paul Ryan, the shape-shifting Romney has locked into focus – cementing himself as the frontman for the far-right partisans responsible for Washington's gridlock.

There is no longer any ambiguity about the path that Romney would pursue as president, because it's the same trajectory charted by Ryan, the architect of the House GOP's reactionary agenda since the party's takeover in 2010. "Picking Ryan as vice president outlines the future of the next four or eight years of a Romney administration," GOP power broker Grover Norquist exulted in August. "Ryan has outlined a plan that has support in the Republican House and Senate. You have a real sense of where Romney's going." In fact, Norquist told party activists back in February, the true direction of the GOP is being mapped out by congressional hardliners. All the Republicans need to realize their vision, he said, is a president "with enough working digits to handle a pen."

The GOP legislation awaiting Romney's signature isn't simply a return to the era of George W. Bush. From abortion rights and gun laws to tax giveaways and energy policy, it's far worse. Measures that have already sailed through the Republican House would roll back clean-air protections, gut both Medicare and Medicaid, lavish trillions in tax cuts on billionaires while raising taxes on the poor, and slash everything from college aid to veteran benefits. In fact, the tenets of Ryan Republicanism are so extreme that they even offend the pioneers of trickle-down economics. "Ryan takes out the ax and goes after programs for the poor – which is the last thing you ought to cut," says David Stockman, who served as Ronald Reagan's budget director. "It's ideology run amok."

Greed and Debt: The True Story of Mitt Romney and Bain Capital

And Romney has now adopted every letter of the Ryan agenda. Take it from Ed Gillespie, senior adviser to the campaign: "If the Ryan budget had come to his desk as president," Gillespie said of Romney, "he would have signed it, of course."

A look at the bills that Republicans have passed since they took control of the House in 2010 offers a clear blueprint of the agenda that a Romney administration would be primed to establish:

FEWER JOBS

Republicans in Congress have repeatedly put ideology before creating jobs. For more than a year, they've refused to put President Obama's jobs bill up for a vote, even though projections show it would create nearly 2 million jobs without adding a penny to the deficit. The reason? The $447 billion bill would be entirely paid for through a surtax on millionaires.

In addition, the Republicans' signature initiative last year – the debt-ceiling standoff – was a jobs-killer, applying the brakes to the economic recovery. From February through April 2011, the economy had been adding 200,000 jobs a month. But during the uncertainty created by the congressional impasse, job creation was cut in half for every month the standoff continued. And according to the Economic Policy Institute, the immediate spending cuts required by the debt-ceiling compromise are likely to shrink the economy by $43 billion this year, killing nearly 323,000 jobs.

What Ryan markets as his "Path to Prosperity" would make things even worse: The draconian cuts in his latest budget, according to the EPI, would put an additional drag on the economy, destroying another 4.1 million jobs by 2014.

GOD, GUNS AND GAYS

The retrograde social agenda laid out in recent GOP legislation represents a full-scale assault on fundamental American rights. Last year, the House passed a bill that would broadly prohibit women from purchasing insurance plans that cover abortion. The so-called Protect Life Act would also allow hospitals to refuse a dying woman an abortion that would save her life. Ryan himself co-sponsored legislation that would have made it impossible for impoverished victims of rape and incest to receive abortions unless their assault met a narrow definition of "forcible rape." Under the bill's language, for instance, federal abortion coverage would be denied to a 12-year-old girl impregnated by a 40-year-old man, unless she could prove she fought back.

When they weren't trying to force women to birth babies for rapists, the GOP House was voting to make it easier for would-be criminals to carry concealed firearms. In the first major gun legislation passed after their colleague Gabrielle Giffords was shot in the head, the House sided with her attempted murderer, passing an NRA-backed measure that would have undercut state limits on concealed-carry permits. Under the legislation, authorities in a state that prohibits drunk people from carrying a hidden weapon, for instance, would be barred from arresting an armed inebriate if he had a permit from another state without such a restriction. The bill, said Dennis Henigan of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, would "make it easier for the Jared Loughners of the world to pack heat on our streets and in our communities."

The GOP's love of guns is rivalled only by its contempt for gay Americans – even those who take up arms in defense of their country. Unable to block the repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," Republicans in the House approved riders in the Defense appropriations bill to undermine the rights of gays in the armed forces. An amendment introduced by Rep. Todd Akin – Ryan's co-sponsor on "forcible rape" – sought to prohibit military facilities from being used to hold gay weddings, and to bar military chaplains from presiding over such ceremonies. Another House rider banned the military from offering medical, pension and death benefits to the spouses of gay soldiers.

DRILL AND POLLUTE

In thrall to dirty-energy interests, House Republicans have held more than 300 votes to hamstring the EPA, roll back environmental protections and open up sensitive public land to drilling – offering polluters a virtual license to kill. "This is, without doubt, the most anti-environmental Congress in history," said Rep. Henry Waxman, the ranking Democrat on the House Energy Committee.

Under the Republicans, the House has voted to ban the EPA from placing limits on climate-warming pollution, to reverse new fuel standards projected to slash dependence on foreign oil and save Americans $1.7 trillion at the pump, and to end standards signed into law by President Bush that would phase out wasteful, high-wattage incandescent light bulbs. Even more reckless, the House voted to block limits on deadly mercury emissions – a move that federal scientists calculate would result in 20,000 premature deaths – and drop safeguards on cement manufacturing that would kill another 12,500 Americans and lead to thousands of avoidable heart attacks.

The Federal Bailout That Saved Mitt Romney

In February, over the objections of the State Department, the House voted to approve the Keystone XL pipeline, which would transport toxic tar sands from Canada across the Midwest's largest and most vulnerable supply of drinking water. In that same vote, the House returned to the great dream of the Bush era, voting to permit the oil industry to drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. In an even more sweeping move, the House passed a bill to block all new major regulations until the nation's unemployment rate falls to six percent – a measure that would choke off not only new environmental safeguards, but also the new limits on Wall Street recklessness required under Dodd-Frank.

BASH IMMIGRANTS

In June, the house approved a raft of amendments blocking Obama's executive directives on immigration reform. The legislation would prevent the administration from prioritizing the deportation of violent criminals over law-abiding immigrants, and put Homeland Security back in the business of deporting the undocumented spouses of American citizens. The House even found a way to merge its dirty-energy agenda with its anti-immigrant stance, passing a "border bill" that bars enforcement of 16 key environmental laws – including the Endangered Species Act – on federal land within 100 miles of the Mexican border. The bill is a sop to the Minuteman crowd, who don't want to contend with environmental rules as they erect electrified fences to keep out immigrants. But the measure is so broadly written that it also applies to the Canadian border, opening up places like Glacier National Park in Montana to bulldozers. Rep. Denny Rehberg, a Republican from Montana, calls the bill "absolutely necessary" to secure his state from "drug dealers, human traffickers and terrorists."

In perhaps its most absurd gesture, the House GOP managed to weave together its hatred of immigrants and abortions, passing a rider that bans the government from providing abortions to immigrants in detention. The move is a brave solution in search of an actual problem: Federal agencies have never paid for such a procedure.

ENRICH BILLIONAIRES

House Republicans have voted three times to extend all of the Bush-era tax cuts – a move that would blow a $3.8 trillion hole in the budget over the next decade. In fact, the Ryan budget – twice approved by the House – goes even further, doling out another $2.5 trillion to the wealthiest Americans by reducing the tax rate on top earners from 35 to just 25 percent, lowering the corporate rate to 25 percent, and ending the alternative minimum tax, a safeguard against tax cheats.

Romney, in fact, wants to give away even more to the rich than Republicans in the House by permanently eliminating the estate tax – a proposal that alarmsr veterans of the first Bush administration. "Given the vast amounts of wealth that have accumulated at the very, very, very top, it's an odd time to be eliminating this most progressive element of the tax system," says Michael Graetz, a former deputy assistant Treasury secretary under Bush. Over a decade, Romney's gift to the nation's most fortunate families would allow their heirs to pocket at least $1 trillion (including up to $50 million for Mitt's own heirs).

How the GOP Became the Party of the Rich

Those without family fortunes, meanwhile, would see their taxes soar. Independent tax groups have concluded that the only way to replace the tax revenue lost by the proposed Ryan and Romney tax cuts would be to end tax breaks – like the one for home-mortgage interest – that directly benefit the middle class. And the poor would get the shaft: The Ryan budget slashes the Child Tax Credit, meaning that a single mother of two earning the minimum wage would watch her annual tax bill rise by more than $1,500.

SLASH GOVERNMENT

Under the Ryan blueprint approved by the House and voted for by 40 GOP senators, government spending on everything that's not Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security – NASA, highways, education, you name it – would be cut in half by 2022 and nearly in half again by 2050, until it stands at just 3.5 percent of the economy. As the Congressional Budget Service notes, such spending levels would be unprecedented in modern times: Since World War II, the government's discretionary spending has never fallen below eight percent of GDP.

If signed into law by President Romney, the Ryan budget would slash spending on college tuition grants by 42 percent next year and kick 1 million students out of the program. It would also gut funding for public schools, food and drug safety, basic science research, law enforcement and low-income housing. The cuts to food stamps alone would total $134 billion over the next decade. Ripping Ryan for trying to cloak his budget in Catholic doctrine, priests and faculty from Georgetown University wrote, "Your budget appears to reflect the values of your favorite philosopher, Ayn Rand, rather than the gospel of Jesus Christ." There is one place, however, where Republicans want to increase spending: Under the most recent Ryan budget, the Pentagon would receive an extra $29 billion a year, reversing Obama's modest efforts to slow the growth of defense spending. Where would the extra cash come from? In May, the House approved a Ryan bill to replace automatic cuts to the Pentagon under the debt-ceiling agreement with $261 billion in cuts to the federal safety net. The measure would deny food stamps to 1.8 million Americans, leave 280,000 kids without school lunches and cut off health care to 300,000 poor children.

DESTROY HEALTH CARE

Republicans in the House have voted more than 30 times to repeal Obamacare – a move that would deplete the Medicare trust fund eight years early, kick 6.6 million young adults off their parents' health insurance, cost seniors $700 more on average for prescription drugs, and make it legal once again for insurance companies to charge women more than men and to rescind policies when people get sick. At the same time, repealing Obamacare would provide a massive giveback to the rich, handing over nearly $400 billion in tax revenues to those who earn above $250,000 a year.

To further boost the profits of insurance companies, the House passed a Ryan plan to voucherize Medicare, subjecting seniors to the whims of the private market. In the first year alone, according to the Congressional Budget Office, the cost to seniors would more than double, to $12,500 – and taxpayers would not save a dime, as private insurers pocketed the money. By 2050, as inflation took its toll, buying a policy as good as present-day Medicare would cost an 85-year-old more than $50,000. The Ryan plan would also eviscerate Medicaid by turning federal contributions to the program into lump-sum "block grants" that states can administer as they see fit. The trouble is that the grants, like Medicare vouchers, won't keep pace with soaring health care costs. In the first decade alone, the plan would bilk states out of $810 billion and deny health care to 30 million poor children, disabled Americans and seniors.

The last time a Republican presidential candidate touted an agenda to cut spending, lower taxes, boost defense and balance the budget was Ronald Reagan in 1980. Like Romney and Ryan, Reagan didn't have an actual plan for his spending cuts – they were an accounting fantasy, openly joked about as the "magic asterisk." In the end, as promised, Reagan's tax cuts went through, and the Pentagon's budget soared. But the spending cuts never materialized – so Reagan wound up tripling the debt.

If it didn't work for Reagan, says his former budget director, it would be foolish to assume Romney and Ryan can do better. "The Republican record on spending control is so abysmally bad," Stockman says, "that at this point they don't have a leg to stand on." Indeed, the last GOP administration turned $5 trillion in projected surplus into $5 trillion of new debt.

No one doubts Ryan's determination to slash the social safety net: Of the $5.3 trillion in cuts he has proposed, nearly two-thirds come from programs for the poor. But when it comes time to eviscerate the rest of the federal budget, Stockman says – funding for things like drug enforcement and public schools – Congress will "never cut those programs that deeply." In short, the rich will get their tax cuts. The poor will be left destitute. But America will be driven even deeper into debt.

That, at heart, is the twisted beauty of the plan being championed by Ryan and Romney: The higher Republicans manage to drive up the debt, the more ammunition they have in their fight to slash federal spending for the needy. And the more time they waste trumpeting their "fiscal discipline," the more the nation's infrastructure will continue to crumble around them. Squandering two full workweeks of the congressional calendar on votes to repeal Obamacare has cost taxpayers $48 million. That's nearly the same amount of money now needed to repair cracks in the Capitol itself – spending the House GOP has refused to authorize, out of anti-governmental spite. "If the House wants the dome to fall in," said Senate Appropriations chair Ben Nelson, "I hope it falls on their side." If the Republicans experience a crushing blow as a result of their hard-right agenda, of course, it won't be caused by the laws of physics – it will be delivered by the voters on Election Day.