Romney would overturn all of the cuts to Medicare included in the Affordable Care Act

After months of leaving practically every element of his policy proposals on the level of abstraction, Mitt Romney has finally offered a bit of clarity. According to his policy director, a President Romney would overturn all of the cuts to Medicare included in the Affordable Care Act, a figure that initially totaled $500 billion but has increased to $700 billion in the three years since the bill became a law. The bulk of these cuts are noncontroversial—Paul Ryan's budget, notably, maintains them—and they don't harm seniors' care one bit, despite Romney's wild claims. But hey, any chance to fear-monger with old white folks about that scary man in the White House, right? As our own Jamelle Bouie wrote today, Romney needs to win a large majority of the elderly vote if he hopes to win in November.

What would it mean to leave Medicare untouched? Ezra Klein dug into the implications of Romney's promise, combined with his other budget plans. You will be shocked, no doubt, to learn that the numbers don't come close to adding up. The Republican nominee has vowed to keep defense spending at 4 percent of GDP while capping all spending at 20 percent of GDP, while leaving both Medicare and Social Security untouched. Per a study by Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, that would mean all other aspects of the federal budget would have to be slashed by 40 percent in 2016. That jumps to 57 percent cuts by 2022. Sure, those are average estimations and since Romney has been a cheapskate with details he might spare veteran benefits while decimating environmental projections. But until he offers some specifics, it seems fair to imagine a Romney presidency would do a clean 40 percent slice and dice. 

Klein argues that Romney's budget proposal should be treated as fantasy. "That’s not even remotely plausible," he writes. "The consequences would be catastrophic. The outcry would be deafening. And Romney has shown no stomach for selling such severe cuts." It's certainly true that the public would revolt as practically every government service disappeared. But if this is the platform Romney wants to run on, shouldn't it be treated in serious terms, rather than dismissing it as empty talk? After all, Romney doubled down on draconian measures when he selected Paul Ryan as his running mate. Thought games trying to discern the "real Romney" are a waste of time; the press needs to take him at his word when he says he wants to gut all spending outside the military and entitlements. There should be no question that Romney would run a red line through everything if it were solely up to him and his new partner in fiscal crime.