(CNN) - National Democrats went after Mitt Romney's spending plan Friday, which will pare down spending by the federal government to only 'essential' programs.
In a web video, the Democratic National Committee said the plan by the GOP presidential candidate would seriously hurt middle class families, saying the plan was something "only a billionaire could love."
The ad offers details: "Protecting $40 billion in subsidies for big oil, $700 billion in tax breaks for the wealthy, nearly a trillion dollars to corporate America, what will middle class families get in Romney's tax plan? Fifty-four bucks. Barely enough for a tank of gas."
Romney, who's making his second bid for the White House, previewed his plan in an op-ed piece Friday in USA Today and in a speech to voters Thursday in Exeter, New Hampshire. The former Massachusetts governor will offer more details in remarks in Washington Friday afternoon.
In his opinion piece in USA Today, Romney suggested cuts in federal government spending on programs like Amtrak, Planned Parenthood, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, and the National Endowment for the Arts.
Romney wrote in USA Today that he would "eliminate every government program that is not absolutely essential. There are many things government does that we may like but that we do not need. The test should be this: 'Is this program so critical that it is worth borrowing money to pay for it?' The federal government should stop doing things we don't need or can't afford."
Romney also said he would save money by moving certain programs back to states and increasing efficiency within the federal government.
Earlier Friday, Obama's re-election campaign released a memo taking hits at Romney's plan, saying the 2012 hopeful "operates under the false assumption that we can just cut our way to prosperity" and "his plan requires deep spending cuts across government, everywhere outside of defense spending."
Romney's campaign responded by blaming Obama for failed economic policies.
"The middle class won't see an improvement in their situation until Barack Obama is defeated and gone," Romney spokesperson Andrea Saul told CNN. "President Obama has utterly failed to control the excessive spending in Washington. In fact, he has added to the problem."
In his speech in New Hampshire Thursday, Romney said the cuts wouldn't be easy, but that they needed to be made.
"There are other programs I like, and I don't want to cut them," he said, adding that Republican leaders needed to be willing to make those tough choices. "It is a moral responsibility to believe in fiscal responsibility. We do and I do."
–CNN Chief White House Correspondent Jessica Yellin and CNN Political Producer Rachel Streitfeld contributed to this report.
New Obama campaign memo hits Romney spending cuts plan
Democrats target 25 GOP House incumbents in radio ads
Romney offers specifics on spending cuts
I am not a billionaire and I love the plan. Democrats is a group just like Republicans. The idea that one is for the poor and one is for the rich is an imaginary idea.
This episode of Plutocracy Street brought to you by the leter $.
"The idea that one is for the poor and one is for the rich is an imaginary idea."
Right...because Facts Don't Matter (TM).
We have a 16.7 trillion debt........I think there is NO QUESTION, we have to have drastic cuts in spending, no matter WHO gets hurt by the cuts.
The Democrats are living in Wonderland, not the real world.
This proposal is like spitting in the ocean. Nothing of what is mentioned would change the deficit by 1%. Most of the states are on the verge of bankruptcy. Any program moved to the states is another way of killing the program. Romney IS the rich. Romney IS the problem. But don't worry, just wait a day or two. His plan will be exactky the opposite of what it is today.
What do you love about it Jariv? I need specific details that are so great about the plan I see none.
"The Democrats are living in Wonderland, not the real world."
Please. We're ALL living in Wonderland at this point. The GOP threw the nation down the rabbit hole a long long time ago.
"We have a 16.7 trillion debt........I think there is NO QUESTION, we have to have drastic cuts in spending, no matter WHO gets hurt by the cuts."
We don't have 16.7 trillion in debt; it's about 3 trillion less than that. While still a substantial number, we've already done a huge amount of cutting. It's time for the rich to pay their fair share. 68% of millionaires and billionaires agree. Don't believe me? It's in the Wall Street Journal – go read it for yourself. And don't give me that "they are the job creators" BS. They've had 10 years of generous tax cuts, enjoying the lowest rates in over 50 years, and they are NOT investing in our country. Time they payed for all the infrastructure they enjoy and give a little back to the country that gave them so much opportunity.
We also need to end the multi-billion-dollar subsidy to the oil industry and raise the FICA income limit from the current $106,000 to $250,000.
THIS is reality – something Repubs are unwilling to face.
1. Corporations' first allegiance is to maximize profits for the sake of their stock holders.
2. American workers are more expensive than foreign (silly us, we want a living wage and benefits so if we get sick or grow old, we don't die).
3. American corporations (many multi-national entities) feel justified in shipping American jobs overseas (see #1 and #2 above).
4. To think that giving more money via tax cuts (even though they are enjoying the lowest rates in over 50 years) to corporations will somehow spur job creation in the US is delusional.
5. Republicans cling to this belief. Therefore, Republicans and their followers are not only delusional, they are dangerously so.
Vote FOR America in 2012. Vote FOR Democrats.
Obama has acted like a Republican for most of his term, so they really can't talk.
"Corporations are people, my friend." – Mitt Romney, August 11, 2011.
First of all, you're not my friend. Anyone who puts America's well-being ahead of his multinational corporate partners is no friend of mine.
Second of all, if corporations are people, then why can't they die? Why can't they cough? When's the last time one had a mammogram or prostate exam?
Sniffit – you might want to do a little research on the meaning of the word Plutocracy. From the Merriam-Webster dictionary, here are 2 definitions: 1: government by the wealthy and 2: a controlling class of the wealthy.
Yes, we all know that the Republicans are in bed with the oil companies, and the Democrats are in bed with unions. So tell me, how is one any better than the other when both parties are clearly getting their money from outside sources?
Facts do matter – all facts, not just some...
"So tell me, how is one any better than the other when both parties are clearly getting their money from outside sources?"
I've never pretended to support ANY non-living, non-breathing entities having ANY right to donate or throw money into our elections processes to influence their outcome. The right to participate should flow from the right to vote and they don't have one. The mistakes made by granting corporate entities blanket "personhood" and pretending that spending money is a form of "free speech" are coming home to roost as we speak. Remember, the law overturned in Citizens United applied EQUALLY to giant corporations and to unions.
As for your conflation of "the unions" as being no different than what is meant by "the wealthy," you need a history lesson. Moreover, pretending that a bargaining collective that funds itself through dues to represent its members, who can vote on its activities, is the same as a corporation or billionaires or PACs shows a lack of willingness to think about the distinctions...even the nuanced one...or maybe a purposeful ignorance of them, perhaps by acceptance of all the idiotic right wing foaming-at-the-mouth blather about unions.
"Plutocracy" fits what we've got and where we're headed perfectly. The numbers don't lie.
Read Noam Chomsky's recent article "Occupy the Future"...maybe that will give you some perspective, "R."
R-Here is a point of difference between unions and oil companies. The unions that support Democrats are Americans looking out for other Americans. Oil companies are multi-national corporations who are looking out for their investors and their execs. I have stock in two oil companies, and in their most recent reports, both of them are bragging about their overseas activies, neither is talking about any new jobs being created here in the U.S.
I will only believe corporations are people after Texas executes one or a liberal state allows me to legally marry one.
Romney exudes competence, experience, knowledge, leadership where as Obama exudes class warfare, leading from behind, cluelessness and divisiveness.
Another 4 years of the Obama nightmare and NOBODY will be able to save this country.
Let me guess, under Romney's plan defense is "essential" and education is not.