PLANK OCTOBER 8, 2012
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
Simon Rosenberg of the New Democrat Network has noticed something interesting. He went through Mitt Romney’s campaign website to see what tax loopholes Romney plans to close. He couldn't find references to a single one—not on the issue page that summarizes his plan for tax reform and not on the more detailed fifteen-page summary available via hyperlink.
The omission tells us a lot. As you probably know by now, Romney has proposed a tax cut that would cost about $5 trillion in lost revenue. Romney says he’ll offset the cut by closing loopholes, in a way that would neither increase the deficit nor raise taxes on the middle class. But he won't specify which loopholes, perhaps because, according to multiple independent analyses, the math couldn't plausibly work as he says it would.
You may have heard that changed last week, because of an interview that Romney gave to a Colorado television station. That's incorrect.
During that interview, according to the Wall Street Journal, Romney suggested he might try imposing a cap on itemized deductions. But that wouldn't change the math: The three promises would remain incompatible with one another. Besides, according to the Journal account (the only one I can find), Romney wouldn't even commit to that idea. He said simply that it was one example of what he might do. That doesn't really tell us anything.
The question isn't what Romney could do. It's what he would do.
Pinning Romney down on this, alas, has been difficult. Obama tried during Wednesday’s debate. But he did so in long-winded, complicated way that I imagine very few viewers understood. Afterwards, I suggested Obama should have put the question directly to Gov. Romney, in clearer and more succinct terms:
OK, governor, you say you can offset the $5 trillion cost of your tax plan. Tell us how, with real numbers. Are you getting rid of the home mortgage deduction? The exclusion for health insurance? Be straight with the American people about what you are proposing.
Or maybe even that's too complicated. Maybe what Obama needs is a simple, instantly recognizable phrase. Like this one.
Show me the money, governor. Show me the money.
Update: I changed "possibly work" to "plausibly work." That seems more accurate.
follow me on twitter @CitizenCohn
15 comments
Don't even say the 5 trillion, say he publicly said he was going to cut tax rates by 20%, ask him how much this would cost if he excludes offsets and if he refuses to answer that do simple math like 100-20=80 and then mention the CBO said it would cost 5 trillion then ask him to specify what are the offsets. Or better yet have Biden do it again and again the debate, the guy is the chairman of the budget committee. If Biden has balls he can publicly castrate Ryan proving that either the budget chairman doesn't know the budget or is a lying, prevaricating sack of shit (or both)
- blackton
October 8, 2012 at 10:34am
I actually think Obama should make (plausible) shit up about Romney and see how he reacts. "Governor Romney has cheated on his taxes all his life." "Governor Romney is known for his record of graft and corruption in Utah." "Governor Romney fucked a dead goat in Poland." Just to see how frustrated Romney gets. ("No I did not; don't be ridiculous - no one fucks a dead goat.""Oh, so it was alive, but drugged, was it?") It is evident to all that the way to "win" debates and score four points in Florida is simply to lie, lie and lie again, thereby reducing your opponent to a pile of goo.
- icarus-r
October 8, 2012 at 10:52am
Yes, mention the home mortgage and health insurance deductions, and also one more: the deduction for charitable gifts. For decades, the American approach has been to encourage individual giving to charity with a tax deduction. In all the fuss about "Romney v. Big Bird" the discussion has been about his plan to end direct federal subsidy. But the big harm to PBS and your local public TV and radio stations (and many other charities) is in Romney's overall tax policy. To offset the drop in rates, the charitable gift deduction would have to be greatly reduced or eliminated. Think about the incentives: under the current system, the (slightly) higher rate and the full deduction create incentives for gifts to charity. Under the Republicans' proposals, the lower rate and the reduced or eliminated deductions reduce the incentives. The elimination of the estate tax would have similar effect. This is the greater threat to charities, be they social service, medical, religious, arts, and yes, Big Bird.
- bjones
October 8, 2012 at 10:54am
Chait blogs this morning that Obama's goose is cooked, at least when it comes to pinning down Romney on taxes. I agree. Stop chasing a rabbit and move on to something different to contrast Romney and Obama. Looking in the rear view mirror to foresee the future is beyond stubborn; it's futile.
- rayward
October 8, 2012 at 11:32am
Gov Romney: How much lower would everyone's tax rates be if capital gains were taxed the same as wages and salaries?
- stanmvp48
October 8, 2012 at 11:40am
Both candidates have a few public appearances left before the election. The President's campaign should consider the Romney tax plan as an integral part of the campaign's stump speech. Nothing could scare the public like the prospect of insane tax reform.
- Doug12
October 8, 2012 at 11:46am
Blackton has it right -- at no point has Romney SAID he's increasing the deficit 5 trillion dollars. So trying to nail his feet to the floor over something he hasn't said? Self-defeating. Romney HAS said he intends to cut taxes 20% across the board, but in a revenue-neutral way. First of all, with a 1 trillion dollar deficit, doing anything "revenue-neutral" while claiming the deficit is a "moral" issue is an immoral act. Secondly, it can be easily demonstrated that a 20% across the board "revenue-neutral" tax cut will require big cuts somewhere. THAT is the case that needs to be made. Obama's attacks have this self-defeating tendency to start three steps down the road. Okay, Romney proposes 20% tax cuts. Some group concludes this results in 5 trillion dollars of deficits. So Obama starts with the 5 trillion -- making most people go "Huh?" and giving Romney an out. Solution: Bloody well attack Romney using Romney's words. "You've called for a 20% tax cut -- how on earth do you expect to pay for that?"
- AllanL5
October 8, 2012 at 11:58am
Rayward has a point. But, I think the President should say he has a plan with details to balance the budget and Romney has said he only has an intention to balance the budget but no plan to do so. The President should also memorize every one of Romney's flip flops and insert them into his answers.
- Nusholtz
October 8, 2012 at 12:05pm
Sorry, but no. You do not confront by asking Romney. You confront be declaring what Romney's proposals are and then let him try to squirm out of it. "Governor Romney says he will cut tax rates by 20%. The revenues lost from such a tax cut would come to $5 trillion over ten years and almost all the benefits would go to the wealthiest. Even Governor Romney's campaign admits that and all outside observers agree. Yet, the Governor says he will cut the deficit. How is that possible? Lose $5 trillion and not increase the deficit by $5 trillion? The answer is that it is impossible. But the Governor claims he will offset the entire $5 trillion of lost tax revenues by eliminating deductions. Which deductions? The mortgage interest deduction? The exclusion for health insurance? The deduction for contributions to retirement plans? Overwhelmingly, these deductions benefit the middle class. And even if he eliminated every single middle class deduction, he would still be short by $3 trillion. That means a $3 trillion increase in deficits, plus interest on that. Pretty soon you are back to a $5 trillion increase in the national debt that the Governor claims he will reduce. In reality, as the extremists in his party demand, Governor Romney's plan is to cut taxes for the wealthiest even more and pay for the upper-income tax cuts by raising taxes on the middle class and increasing the deficit and the national debt. In the real world, that is the only possible outcome of Governor Romney's plan unless you believe that 2 + 2 = 22. Governor Romney's plan only adds up if you believe in magic. I don't, and America cannot afford to gamble its economy on any more of such craziness." Attack, don't ask.
- roidubouloi
October 8, 2012 at 12:10pm
Fair enough, Roid, I agree "attack, don't ask." But you need to add, "Keep it Simple". A 4 minute response given in a 2 minute time period, when a 30 second response would have done, does not help. "Romney says he'll cut taxes 20%, but then refuses to say where he'll make up the revenue. That means support cuts for the middle-class. That is not how it should be done."
- AllanL5
October 8, 2012 at 1:05pm
OK, so I read the headline as, "How Obama Should Confront Romney Over His Tax Evasion Polices."
- Sophia
October 8, 2012 at 1:18pm
Absolutely, Allan. Consider mine a very first draft that should be refined down to the essential sound bites. This, however, is exactly why the toolkit has to be prescripted. Very few people can think in sound bites if they are trying to come up with them on the spot. The thrusts and ripostes must all be canned, and if they are not directly responsive to whatever Romney is saying, it does not matter one bit. The public does not follow the sequential logic of the "debate." It is about sound bites and demeanor.
- roidubouloi
October 8, 2012 at 1:53pm
I would just like to know how Romney can say that no economist can diagnose his tax plan but six studies have approved it.
- Nusholtz
October 8, 2012 at 2:05pm
AllanL5, you nailed it. I know that of necessity a sound bite can't be more than a mouth full, but also reducing inheritance, corporate, and capital gains taxes.
- Vogelfam
October 8, 2012 at 11:37pm
Governor Romney is cutting taxes, mainly on rich people like himself, to blow a 5 billion dollar hole in the debt over the next ten years. Has he explained how he'll pay for it? No. Not even to secret gatherings of other rich people where he's much more honest than with average Americans looking to get a hand up and not a hand out. In the last debate, he finally came up with some source of money to pay for the explosion of debt he's proposing. He said, I love ya Big Bird, but I'm going to have to cut ya! That saves us a total of 0.01%, which means we've still got 5 billion to go. This man isn't serious. Even worse, he's dangerous--the last time a Republican tried to pull the wool over us on taxes, his name was George W. Bush and he's responsible for 5 billion dollars of our debt today because of unpaid for tax cuts on the rich and unpaid for wars on our credit card. We can't afford to go back and do it again, and Governor Romney knows it. That's why he's going across America and lying about his own plan for the country. He doesn't care if half of the country finds out, because he's really not concerned about the almost 200 million Americans that won't be voting for him. That's someone else's problem. My fellow Americans, the stakes are too high to change horses in the race to a man who's just in it for the tax break.
- chaitless
October 9, 2012 at 12:25am