19a9e976   
   XPost: alt.politics.elections, alt.politics.republicans, alt.politics.economics   
   From: nsmontassoc@yahoo.com   
      
   On 8/4/2012 5:31 AM, Ann Romney's Dressage Horse wrote:   
   > "No matter how hard the Tax Policy Center labored to make Romney's   
   > promises add up, every simulation ended the same way: with a tax   
   > increase on the middle class. The tax cuts Romney is offering to the   
   > rich are simply larger than the size of the (non-investment)   
   > deductions and loopholes that exist for the rich. That's why it's   
   > "mathematically impossible" for Romney's plan to produce anything but   
   > a tax increase on the middle class."   
   >   
   >   
   > "Romney's Tax Plan: An Impossible Dream"   
   >   
   >   
   > Op Ed   
   > By Ezra Klein   
   > Aug. 3, 2012   
   >   
   >   
   >   
   > I CAN DESCRIBE MITT ROMNEY's tax-policy promises in two words:   
   > mathematically impossible.   
   >   
   > Those aren't my words. They're the words of the nonpartisan Tax Policy   
   > Center, which has conducted the most comprehensive analysis to date of   
   > Romney's tax plan and which bent over backward to make his promises   
   > add up. They're perhaps the two most important words that have been   
   > written during this U.S. presidential campaign.   
   >   
   > If you were to distill the presumptive Republican nominee's campaign   
   > to a few sentences, you could hardly do better than this statement   
   > from the speech Romney delivered in Detroit, outlining his plan for   
   > the economy: "I believe the American people are ready for real   
   > leadership. I believe they deserve a bold, conservative plan for   
   > reform and economic growth. Unlike President Obama, I actually have   
   > one — and I'm not afraid to put it on the table."   
   >   
   > The truth is that Romney is afraid to put his plan on the table. He   
   > has promised to reduce the deficit, but has refused to identify the   
   > spending he would cut. He has promised to reform the tax code, but has   
   > refused to identify the deductions and loopholes he would eliminate.   
   > The only thing he has put on the table is dessert: a promise to cut   
   > marginal tax rates by 20 percent across the board and to do so without   
   > raising the deficit or reducing the taxes paid by the top 1 percent.   
   >   
   > The Tax Policy Center took Romney at his word. They also did what he   
   > hasn't done: They put his plan on the table.   
   >   
   > To help Romney, the center did so under the most favorable conditions,   
   > which also happen to be wildly unrealistic. The analysts assumed that   
   > any cuts to deductions or loopholes would begin with top earners, and   
   > that no one earning less than $200,000 a year would have their   
   > deductions reduced until all those earning more than $200,000 had lost   
   > all of their deductions and tax preferences. They assumed, as Romney   
   > has promised, that the reforms would spare the portions of the tax   
   > code that reward saving and investment. They even ran a simulation in   
   > which they used a model developed, in part, by N. Gregory Mankiw, one   
   > of Romney's economic advisers, that posits "implausibly large growth   
   > effects" from tax cuts.   
   >   
   > The numbers never worked out. No matter how hard the Tax Policy Center   
   > labored to make Romney's promises add up, every simulation ended the   
   > same way: with a tax increase on the middle class. The tax cuts Romney   
   > is offering to the rich are simply larger than the size of the (non-   
   > investment) deductions and loopholes that exist for the rich. That's   
   > why it's "mathematically impossible" for Romney's plan to produce   
   > anything but a tax increase on the middle class.   
   >   
   > The Romney campaign offered two responses to the Tax Policy Center's   
   > analysis, one more misleading than the other.   
   >   
   > First, the campaign called the analysis "just another biased study   
   > from a former Obama staffer." That jab refers to Adam Looney, one of   
   > the study's three co-authors, who served in a staff role on the White   
   > House Council of Economic Advisers under Obama. But the Tax Policy   
   > Center is directed by Donald Marron, who was one of the principals on   
   > George W. Bush's Council of Economic Advisers. Calling the Tax Policy   
   > Center biased simply isn't credible — a point underscored by the fact   
   > that the Romney campaign referred to the group's work as "objective,   
   > third-party analysis" during the primary campaign.   
   >   
   > Then the Romney campaign said, "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." There's a reason the   
   > study ignores those "positive benefits": Romney has called for a   
   > revenue-neutral corporate tax plan that brings the rate down from 35   
   > percent to 25 percent while also promising to balance the budget. He   
   > has not said how he will achieve either goal. Until he does, those   
   > positive benefits — if they exist — are impossible to calculate.   
   >   
   > If Romney tried to pay for his tax cuts by reducing spending, the   
   > results, as the Tax Policy Center notes, would be even more   
   > regressive. Romney has promised to increase defense spending and hold   
   > benefits steady for the current generation of seniors. The only   
   > remaining big spending programs are those that help the poor; that's   
   > where Romney's cuts would have to be concentrated. Paying for tax cuts   
   > for the rich by curtailing programs for the poor is even more of a   
   > reverse-Robin Hood act than paying for tax cuts for the rich by   
   > cutting the tax expenditures (deductions and the like) of the middle   
   > class.   
   >   
   > The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities produced its own analysis   
   > of Romney's plan, based on an assumption that Romney pays for half of   
   > his tax cuts through spending cuts. The conclusion: By 2022, Romney   
   > would need to cut all non-defense, non-Social Security programs by 49   
   > percent. That is not plausible, to say the least.   
   >   
   > The Romney campaign has not provided good answers to the questions   
   > raised by its own math. But we already knew the Romney campaign didn't   
   > have good answers. If Romney had good answers, he would have made good   
   > on his rhetoric and put his plans on the table.   
   >   
   > It would be great if Romney could fulfill his promise to cut taxes by   
   > trillions of dollars, increase defense spending, keep entitlement   
   > spending on pretty much its current path for the next decade and   
   > balance the budget. But as Tyler Cowen, a George Mason University   
   > economist, put it in a tweet, "The proposed Romney fiscal policy just   
   > doesn't make any sense."   
   >   
   > This is not a surprise. Even some Republican policy experts admit in   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)