Mitt's impossible math...
Ezra Klein at WaPo:
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 election.
If you were to distill the presumptive Republican nominee’s campaign
to a few sentences, you could hardly do better than this statement of
purpose 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 refused to identify the spending
he would cut. He has promised to reform the tax code, but 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 would have their
deductions reduced until all those earning more than $200,000 had lost
all of their deductions and tax preferences first. They assumed, as
Romney has promised, that the reforms would spare the portions of the
tax code that privilege saving and investment. They even ran a
simulation in which they used a model developed, in part, by Greg
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 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, the George Mason University
economist, put it in a pithy tweet (though perhaps “pithy tweet” is a tautology), “The proposed Romney fiscal policy just doesn’t make any sense.
This is not a surprise. Even some Republican policy experts admit in
private that Romney’s promises simply don’t add up. To twist Abraham
Lincoln’s famous formulation, the Romney campaign has decided it’s
better to remain silent and be thought evasive than to reveal your plan
and remove all doubt that you’re cutting taxes on the rich while
increasing the deficit, raising taxes on the middle class and cutting
programs for the poor...
No comments:
Post a Comment