"A Tax Plan That Defies the Rules of Math"

[URL]http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/12/opinion/sunday/romneys-tax-plan-defies-the-rules-of-math.html[/URL]

[quote]IN May of 2000, when George W. Bush was running for president on a platform of extravagant tax cuts for all, his campaign did something that would be considered remarkable today: it submitted his tax plan to the Congressional Joint Committee on Taxation, to see how much all those tax cuts would cost the Treasury.

The bipartisan committee ran through the details provided by the campaign and [URL="http://www.nytimes.com/2000/05/03/us/2000-campaign-money-issues-spate-numerical-sparring-highlights-fiscal-focus.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm"]predicted that the tax plan would cost about $1.3 trillion[/URL] over nine years, an underestimate but a clear sign of its high price tag. With the budget in surplus at the time, Mr. Bush didn’t dispute that cost, and never tried to pretend that the cuts would be free. Within a decade, in fact, they would turn out to be the biggest factor in the huge deficit he created.

Twelve years later, Mitt Romney, the presumptive Republican nominee, claims his far deeper tax cuts would have a price tag of exactly zero dollars. He has no intention of submitting his tax plan to the committee or anywhere else that might conduct a serious analysis, since he seems intent on running a campaign far more opaque than any candidate has in years.

He has made his economic plan the fundamental basis of his candidacy, and yet with the Republican convention just two weeks away, we know next to nothing of the plan’s details. The extreme cuts proposed by his new running mate, Paul Ryan, are far more hard-edged, making Mr. Romney’s mathematically impossible promises look vague and shopworn by comparison.

For example, Mr. Romney wants to keep all the Bush tax cuts, then cut taxes much further, particularly for the rich, but he says the plan won’t grow the deficit by a dime. He won’t say how he will accomplish this — there are no real numbers in his plan beyond a vague pledge to eliminate some loopholes. The Joint Committee would take one look at his substance-free plan and say, we can’t work with this.

Mr. Romney’s tax proposal is no different from any other aspect of [URL="http://www.mittromney.com/blogs/mitts-view/2011/09/believe-america-mitt-romneys-plan-jobs-and-economic-growth"]his economic plan.[/URL] He promises to cut nondefense spending by 5 percent, but won’t tell voters what programs that will affect. He wants to repeal all of President Obama’s regulations that burden the economy, but won’t say which ones. And he pledges to eliminate health care reform, but won’t discuss how or even whether he would replace it.

Earlier this month, a nonpartisan group of tax experts took matters into their own hands and tried to analyze the tax plan. What would happen, they asked, if you actually made [URL="http://www.mittromney.com/issues/tax"]all the cuts he has proposed[/URL]? That would mean extending the Bush cuts, reducing income-tax rates by an additional 20 percent, and ending capital gains taxes for the middle class, the estate tax, the alternative minimum tax and the various taxes in health care reform, including the Medicare tax increase on high incomes. The [URL="http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/UploadedPDF/1001628-Base-Broadening-Tax-Reform.pdf"]experts at the Tax Policy Center estimated[/URL] that this would cost $456 billion a year, starting in 2015.

But Mr. Romney said the cuts would be “revenue neutral” and cost nothing because they would be paid for by ending tax breaks and loopholes. He never identified those tax breaks, and now we know why — the experts concluded that there aren’t enough loopholes in the tax code to balance out the cuts. Following Mr. Romney’s plan would mean ending popular deductions for mortgage interest and charitable contributions, which would wind up raising taxes on the middle class, while the rich would still enjoy the benefits of an income-tax cut larger than the deductions they would lose.

. . .

Beyond his standard line about undoing financial reform and Mr. Obama’s “anti-carbon” agenda, Mr. Romney has also vowed to repeal any Obama regulation that might burden the economy, without telling us which ones. Could he mean the power-plant rule that [URL="http://epa.gov/mats/actions.html"]keeps mercury out of children’s lungs, perhaps[/URL]? Or the one requiring [URL="http://www.nhtsa.gov/Laws+&+Regulations/Brakes"]better brakes[/URL] on big trucks? Or the one [URL="http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/3-24-11.cfm"]expanding disability protections[/URL] to people with AIDS or autism? Don’t expect an answer.

The Romney campaign decided long ago that it didn’t need a real economic plan of its own when it could just bash the president’s. “As long as I continue to speak about the economy, [URL="http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7413952n"]I’m going to win[/URL],” he said last month. Voters, he is saying, need not inquire further.[/quote]

I find this cartoon expresses the reasons for my disgust on the recent "Romney caused my wife's cancer" ad pretty well.

Okay, I had to post this comic because it says essentially what I said above.

[QUOTE=Zeta-Flux;307916]Okay, I had to post this comic because it says essentially what I said above.[/QUOTE]

Disagree - IMO a more-apt analogy would be a bottle of strychnine vs nothing, since the alleged cost savings of the Ryan plan are illusory, whereas the budget-busting elements (massive tax breaks for the rich) are all too real.

I agree with you on the appalling "cancerous" attack ad, but we differ in that you seem to believe the Romney ticket actually offers hope for change. The only "change" I see them offering is more of the "brother, can you spare a dime?" variety for the nation's non-looter elite (a.k.a. "the 99%). (And again, Obama has been horrid in this regard as well, he is just better at pretending and convincing folks otherwise).

[QUOTE=ewmayer;307939]...a bottle of strychnine...[/QUOTE]
But strychnine did wonders for the 1904 marathon winner, right?!

ewmayer,

Just to clarify. Are you claiming that the current Ryan plan saves no money over doing nothing?

What is your solution to the Medicare problem?

[QUOTE=Zeta-Flux;307946]ewmayer,

Just to clarify. Are you claiming that the current Ryan plan saves no money over doing nothing[/QUOTE]
The only way the Ryan plan can possibly save money is by shifting much of the Medicare cost burden onto the states - i.e. the federal government "saves money" at the cost of bankrupting multiple states, who will then need a bailout from - you guessed it...

[QUOTE]What is your solution to the Medicare problem?[/QUOTE]

Drastic reining-in of medical costs is the only way to actually fix anything. That will require a lot of "expectation management", in the sense of disabusing Americans of the innumerate fantasy of being able to afford top-notch medical care, especially for self-inflicted maladies (obesity, smoking-related illness, etc) on someone else's dime. Further:

o Medicare Part D must be repealed (it should have never passed, and there should have been an official inquiry into the payola scandal surrounding its passage);

o No more subsidies for Big Pharma;

o The whole for-profit insurance and medical-care paradigm needs to be seriously examined;

o If government is going to mandate insurance it must offer a public healthcare option, which enforces the above cost-saving measures at every level.

The whole issue comes down to "what are we getting for our money?" Given that the U.S. spends twice as much on healthcare per person as the next-highest nation (I believe that is Switzerland), there is your problem in a nutshell.

[QUOTE]The only way the Ryan plan can possibly save money is by shifting much of the Medicare cost burden onto the states - i.e. the federal government "saves money" at the cost of bankrupting multiple states, who will then need a bailout from - you guessed it...[/QUOTE]You avoided the question. I didn't ask if the Ryan plan saves money overall. I asked if it saves money over doing nothing. We may as well start somewhere.

By the way, where do you get the idea that the main savings in the Ryan plan is moving costs to states? I've read a few websites from both sides, and haven't seen that issue brought up. I'm still coming up to speed on this issue, so any pointers would be helpful.

[QUOTE]Drastic reining-in of medical costs is the only way to actually fix anything. That will require a lot of "expectation management", in the sense of disabusing Americans of the innumerate fantasy of being able to afford top-notch medical care, especially for self-inflicted maladies (obesity, smoking-related illness, etc) on someone else's dime. Further:

o Medicare Part D must be repealed (it should have never passed, and there should have been an official inquiry into the payola scandal surrounding its passage);

o No more subsidies for Big Pharma;

o The whole for-profit insurance and medical-care paradigm needs to be seriously examined;

o If government is going to mandate insurance it must offer a public healthcare option, which enforces the above cost-saving measures at every level.

The whole issue comes down to "what are we getting for our money?" Given that the U.S. spends twice as much on healthcare per person as the next-highest nation (I believe that is Switzerland), there is your problem in a nutshell. [/QUOTE]It is my understanding that the Ryan plan does offer a public healthcare option (which is a start). I would like to see less (or no) government subsidy of such plans.

Point three is a little vague (and I'm sure both campaigns have said something similar). Point two is something I'm a big fan of. (Is it not a part of the Ryan plan?)

The Ryan plan does rein in spending, putting a limit on medical costs, for those under 55 (as I understand it). Or am I wrong?

[QUOTE=Zeta-Flux;307952]The Ryan plan does rein in spending[/QUOTE]

[U][B]How Ryan has reined in federal spending in the past[/B]:[/U]

"Presented With Letters, Ryan Admits Requesting Stimulus Cash"

[URL]http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/08/presented-with-letters-ryan-admits-requesting-stimulus-cash/[/URL]

(with my emphasis)
[quote][B]After repeated denials[/B], Paul Ryan has admitted he requested stimulus cash even after sharply criticizing the program.

[B] Ryan had denied doing so as recently as Wednesday[/B], when he spoke to ABC’s Cincinnati affiliate, WCPO, in Ohio.

“[B]I never asked for stimulus[/B],” Ryan said. “I don’t recall… so I really can’t comment on it. [B]I opposed the stimulus because it doesn’t work, it didn’t work.[/B]”

Two years ago, during an interview on WBZ’s NewsRadio he was asked by a caller if he “accepted any money” into his district. [B]Ryan said he did not[/B].
“[B]I’m not one [of those] people who votes for something then writes to the government to ask them to send us money. I did not request any stimulus money[/B],” the congressman answered.

But as we’ve now learned, [URL="http://abcnews.go.com/images/Politics/2012_08_13_10_36_08.pdf"]Ryan did write letters[/URL].[/quote][B]Here they are: [/B][URL]http://abcnews.go.com/images/Politics/2012_08_13_10_36_08.pdf[/URL]

[quote][B]He did request stimulus funds.[/B]

“The Olympics may be over but Paul Ryan could have gotten a gold medal in hypocrisy,” a senior administration official told ABC’s Jake Tapper. “As someone who spends all day every day railing against government spending, but then secretly seeks millions in funds for pet projects, he is as Washington as it gets.”[/quote]Yup, Ryan's a reiner-in all right. Yessirree!

From [URL]http://abcnews.go.com/images/Politics/2012_08_13_10_36_08.pdf[/URL]

[quote]October 7, 2009

. . .

I am writing to express my support for the ... grant application for the Recovery Act ...

... I believe they would effective use of the funds they would receive from the DOE.

. . .

I support the ... grant application for the Recovery Act ...

. . .

Sincerely,

Paul Ryan
Member of Congress

(and three more letters from Ryan)[/quote]Note there are four letters (the last is dated December 18, 2009) supporting four different grant applications under four different federal programs (three different sections of the Recovery Act, plus the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant Program).

- - -

Oh yeah -- Republicans now oppose subsidies for renewable energy and efficiency programs, so their explanation will have to be along the lines of "Ryan was for it before Ryan was against it." Sorta goes right along with Romney's stand on healthcare law ... and Palin's Bridge to Nowhere.

I could respect Republican opposition to federal spending and big government ... if they weren't both Big Lies.

Don't they think they could win if they told the truth? "Republicans are for federal spending and big government that supports the Strict Father worldview, and against federal spending and big government that supports the Nurturant Parent worldview, because we are right and they are wrong."

[QUOTE=cheesehead;308222]Oh yeah -- Republicans now oppose subsidies for renewable energy and efficiency programs, so their explanation will have to be along the lines of "Ryan was for it before Ryan was against it." Sorta goes right along with Romney's stand on healthcare law ... and Palin's Bridge to Nowhere.[/QUOTE]I think you're being a little hard on Ryan here, aren't you? According to [URL="http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/08/16/702921/after-documents-show-paul-ryan-secured-20-million-in-stimulus-grants-he-claims-i-never-asked-for-stimulus/"]ThinkProgress[/URL], Ryan released a statement clarifying the issue:[quote=thinkProgress]

[B]Update[/B]: Ryan has issued a statement explaining why he falsely claimed he never requested Recovery funds:[quote=Paul Ryan]“After having these letters called to my attention I checked into them, and they were treated as constituent service requests in the same way matters involving Social Security or Veterans Affairs are handled. This is why I didn’t recall the letters earlier,” he continued. “But they should have been handled differently, and I take responsibility for that. Regardless, it’s clear that the Obama stimulus did nothing to stimulate the economy, and now the President is asking to do it all over again.”[/quote][/quote]So maybe you owe Paul Ryan a bit of an apoplogy here, eh? It sounds like he was just trying to do something nice for a constituent here, not something unPC that Obama would do, like crony capitalism or anyt.....er, umm, wait a second now.

[SIZE="1"]Actually, reading the last letter, he mentions reducing CO[sub]2[/sub] emissions by over 2 million metric tons--I thought greenhouse gas emsissions weren't something we had to worry about....[/SIZE]