Mitt Romney's campaign is hitting back against a study released this week showing the GOP candidate's tax plan would raise taxes on the middle class while slashing the tax burden for millionaires, calling the report "biased" and "a joke."
The study was developed by the centrist Tax Policy Center and authored by economists who have worked under both the Obama and Bush administrations.
The cuts for high-income earners are so large that eliminating every feasible tax deduction and loophole and exemption for people making more than $200,000 would not pay for tax cuts they would receive, the study finds. So among people who earn more than $200,000 per year, it would not be possible to pay for Romney's proposed tax cuts by reducing the exemptions and deductions that group receives.
So in order to make sure his plan would not add to the deficit, Romney would have to pay for $86 billion worth of high-income tax cuts by cutting deductions that benefit middle- and low-income earners, according the Tax Policy Center study.
If his plan is to be revenue neutral, as Romney has said it would be, the study shows he would have to raise taxes on 95 percent of Americans - families earning less than $200,000 - by an average of $500 per year. Millionaires will still get an $87,000 tax cut.
"Mitt Romney's campaign is hitting back against a study released this week showing the GOP candidate's tax plan would raise taxes on the middle class while slashing the tax burden for millionaires, calling the report "biased" and "a joke."
did romney put out any info to the contrary besides just calling it biased and a joke..otherwise thats not really hitting back...he must have different numbers...anyone have them??
"The study ignores the positive benefits to economic growth from both the corporate tax plan and the deficit reduction called for in the Romney plan," Romney's campaign policy director Lanhee Chen said in a statement to Business Insider. "These glaring gaps invalidate the report's conclusions."
In order to make up for the tax cuts, Romney would "limit deductions and exemptions," the presumptive GOP nominee said last month, although not specifying which loopholes he would close or how he would amend the tax code so that more people pay income taxes. Only 47 percent of Americans paid income taxes in 2010.
Romney's campaign has argued that his plan to cut tax rates would spur economic growth. And as the economy grows, allowing more people pay more taxes, his plan would be virtually paid for by those increased revenues.
He's lying through his false teeth.
Here's a link to the actual study: http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/UploadedPDF/1001628-Base-Broadening-Tax-Reform.pdf
Romney's people say it's unfair and/or biased because it doesn't take into consideration the flurry of economic growth that will take place if only we chop taxes.
I hate to bring this up again, but Bush said the same thing. And look where that got us.
definitely gives one pause when thinking about november.
but the middle class isn't exactly feeling upwardly mobile after the president's first four years either -- especially when you look at home equity and values.
really, for me, the tax villain is the state of illinois. the dems in power are literally taxing us to the brink of extinction.
Brookings and the Tax Policy Center found that Romney's plan would raise taxes on 95% of Americans in order to pay for a massive tax break for the top 5%. No, no, Team Romney protested, the researchers didn't use "dynamic" scoring to account for magical growth. Yes, yes, TPC economists responded, the analysis does gives Romney the benefit of the doubt, and the numbers still don't work. But what about the effects of the corporate tax cut? Team Romney asks. That makes the problem worse, the independent researchers replies.
TPM's Josh Marshall twisted the knife today, mocking the Romney advisor who assures us the numbers will add up just as soon as we realize how wonderful life in the fantasy RomneyLand will be. http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2012/08/inside_the_romney_boom_36000.php
[Marshall: "[J]ust look who the campaign is putting forward as the expert on the Romney Economic Boom. I'm sort of surprised no one has pointing this out. It's none other than Kevin Hassett. Who's Kevin Hassett? Well, he's none other than the coauthor of the spectacularly boomtime late-90s bestseller 'Dow 36,000:' The New Strategy for Profiting from the Coming Rise in the Stock Market. As TPM Reader WM points out, not only was the book amazingly wrong and basically assumed the tech boom was permanent, the whole concept was based on the idea that stocks should be valued on a "formula that double-counted earnings and dividends. A true classic in wingnut economics." [...] This is the expert people are supposed to trust when we're told that the economy will grow so fast that normal tax analysis pretty much won't matter anymore in the Romney Economic Boom?]
Yep, we're supposed to listen to the author of Dow 36,000, hear him present extraordinary claims about the results Romney will produce, and then take his word for it without the benefit of, you know, evidence. When pigs fly.
It sure does, Jim.
The July jobs report exceeded expectations, and that's a good thing, but it burns my toast to know how much better it could have been had (1) McConnell not filibustered every jobs plan proposed by the President or Congressional Democrats, and (2) had the new Republican governors not laid off hundreds of thousands of state and municipal workers for the sole purpose of tanking the jobs numbers in hopes of getting their guy into the White House.
i think most state and municipal governments could run leaner. i don't see the layoffs as necessarily a bad thing -- especially considering the disaster that is illinois.
Jim, in a time of severe economic downturn, its best to keep as many people in their jobs as possible. The feds were willing to pay and the Republican governors turned them down. They gave tax breaks to their usual recipients and let those hit hardest by the crash sink even further. If it weren't for the public-sector job losses, Obama's numbers would be off the charts and our recovery much further along than it is.
These are the kinds of ideological decisions that have been disastrous for our country, starting with Bush in 2001 and continuing to this very day. Republican economics s.uck.
Jim, Glenn Kessler - the Washington Post's fact-checker - has found Obama's ad attacking the Romney "plan" to be accurate. It warranted Kessler's rare "Gepetto Checkmark." This certainly isn't going to help Romney's case in the least bit.
Here's the ad: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=r1D1jI61ckY
And here's Kessler's fact-check: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/a-tough-new-obama-ad-that----surprise----is-accurate/2012/08/02/gJQAuigQSX_blog.html
I liked this bit at the end:
[Kessler: "This ad is tough, but we cannot fault the accuracy of its key points. To some extent, the Romney campaign has been hoist with its own petard by refusing to provide sufficient detail that shows how the numbers add up in Romney’s tax and budget plans. So we are left with the judgment of a respected and independent third party."]
"Refusing to provide sufficient detail that shows how the numbers add up" should be Romney's campaign slogan. I'm telling you, this dude really wants you to vote with your fingers crossed, having no idea what the heck he means to do.
"The July jobs report exceeded expectations, and that's a good thing, but it burns my toast to know how much better it could have been had (1) McConnell not filibustered every jobs plan proposed by the President or Congressional Democrats, and (2) had the new Republican governors not laid off hundreds of thousands of state and municipal workers for the sole purpose of tanking the jobs numbers in hopes of getting their guy into the White House."
it's never obama's fault is it??..no matter what happens is always the gop's fault..obama can do no wrong can he??..how partisan can you be??..this guy stinks as a leader..he doesn't have the guts to stand up to radicals in his own party
what about obama destroting the coal industry in place like w.virginia??..what about not stopping the xlpipeline??..how many jobs lost there??...opening up all our energy options (instead of brazil's)....but i'm sure the donations from hollywierd envirowackos will keep coming in
>>> this dude really wants you to vote with your fingers crossed, having no idea what the heck he means to do. <<<
Someone should tell him that you can't pull the lever with the fingers crossed on one hand while the other hand is holding your nose closed.
That's a question that should be asked of the Republican Party. They are so off-the-hook it's downright ridiculous. I posted something earlier this evening about one of them claiming the no- copay birth control equated to 911 and Pearl Harbor. That's a fairly graphic illustration of just how crazy the GOP has become, Bags. Here, again, are quotes directly from McConnell's mouth:
[McConnell: “The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President [Barack] Obama to be a one-term president.” — October 2010
“I refuse to help Barack Obama get re-elected by marching Republicans into a position where we have ownership of a bad economy. ... If we go into default, he will say that Republicans are making the economy worse and try to convince the public — maybe with some merit, if people stop getting their Social Security checks and military families start getting letters saying service people overseas don’t get paid. It’s an argument he could have a good chance of winning, and all of the sudden we have co-ownership of a bad economy. ... That is very bad positioning going into an election.” — July 13, 2010, said right before the potential default, after months of fruitless negotiation.
“I think some of our Members may have thought the default issue was a hostage you might take a chance at shooting. Most of us didn’t think that. What we did learn is this — it’s a hostage worth ransoming.” — Said right after the deal was made.
“We worked very hard to keep our fingerprints off of these proposals. Because we thought — correctly, I think — that the only way the American people would know that a great debate was going on was if the measures were not bipartisan. When you hang the ‘bipartisan’ tag on something, the perception is that differences have been worked out, and there’s a broad agreement that that’s the way forward.” — Said to the Atlantic in December 2010, after the midterms, explaining why Republicans from the start were not going to cooperate with or compromise with any of the Obama proposals.]
What don't you get about those pronouncements. He set out to assure the President's failure, and he wasn't alone. You might read this: "The Conspiracy to Commit Legislative Constipation" - http://www.vanityfair.com/online/wolcott/2012/03/The-Conspiracy-to-Commit-Legislative-Constipation
McConnell was - and is - the enforcer.
Romney... Maybe he is a smart man, but he sure doesn't demonstrate it.
“We worked very hard to keep our fingerprints off of these proposals. Because we thought — correctly, I think — that the only way the American people would know that a great debate was going on was if the measures were not bipartisan. When you hang the ‘bipartisan’ tag on something, the perception is that differences have been worked out, and there’s a broad agreement that that’s the way forward.”
Republicans don't want to agree to policies which they know will fail. I really don't see a problem with that.
