Gillespie Called Out By Wallace For Romney's Impossible Tax Math, Lack of Details

[Somerville]

Woah! Even Fox News anchorman Chris Wallace, is unwilling to accept the prevarications and diversions being offered up by the Romney campaign. Wallace challenged Gillespie on the Romney/Ryan claim that “six different studies have said this is entirely doable,” that you can lower taxes by cutting deductions, without increasing the deficit. Only one of the six actually qualifies as a "study", the others being blog posts and op ed pieces. Wallace noted these facts.



Others in the media have written of the "non-true" claims being made by the Romney people about the so-called tax plans being offered up.

Romney Defends Tax-Cut Plan With Assumptions by Analysts

Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney cited a group of economic studies to show that his tax-cut plan won’t increase the U.S. budget deficit or shift the tax burden to middle-income taxpayers.

Yet Romney won’t provide specifics on what he would cut, and the analysts he cites have had to create their own assumptions.

Romney seeks a spending-only approach to deficit reduction that would cut social programs by more than one-quarter and add money for the Pentagon. Romney’s plan promises tax-rate cuts and avoids immediate changes to Medicare and Social Security benefits.

The Final Word on Mitt Romney’s Tax Plan
By Josh Barro Oct 12, 2012

Mitt Romney's campaign says I'm full of it. I said Romney's tax plan is mathematically impossible: he can't simultaneously keep his pledges to cut tax rates 20 percent and repeal the estate tax and alternative minimum tax; broaden the tax base enough to avoid growing the deficit; and not raise taxes on the middle class. They say they have six independent studies -- six! -- that "have confirmed the soundness of the Governor’s tax plan," and so I should stop whining. Let's take a tour of those studies and see how they measure up.

The Romney campaign sent over a list of the studies, but they are perhaps more accurately described as "analyses," since four of them are blog posts or op-eds. I'm not hating -- I blog for a living -- but I don't generally describe my posts as "studies."

None of the analyses do what Romney's campaign says: show that his tax plan is sound.

The 6 Studies Ryan Cited in Defense of Romney's Tax Plan Don't Add Up

Romney's tax plan is a three-legged stool that doesn't stand. Here's how it works -- or doesn't. Romney wants to 1) cut tax rates across the board by 20 percent, 2) cut tax expenditures to pay for these tax cuts, and 3) maintain progressivity. The problem, as the Tax Policy Center pointed out, is there aren't enough tax expenditures for the rich to pay for all the tax cuts for the rich. Romney's plan only works if he cuts out the tax cuts for the rich, raises taxes on the middle class, or explodes the deficit. In other words, Romney can pick two, and only two, of his tax goals -- what Matt Yglesias of Slate calls the "Romney Trilemma".

That sound you hear is the three-legged stool falling down.
I really like the next line :mrgreen:
All this hasn't stopped a fight against the tyranny of arithmetic.

 

[AdamT]

Yep, even the right wing American Enterprise Institute admits that the plan can't work:

“It’s not as if the entire philosophical approach he’s pursuing is doomed,” said Alan D. Viard, a tax expert at the right-of-center American Enterprise Institute. “But he’s going to need to cut rates significantly less than 20 percent if he wants to honor his other goals.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/10/u...les-blank.html?_r=1&pagewanted=2&ref=politics

 

[Mycroft]

Yep, even the right wing American Enterprise Institute admits that the plan can't work:

The quote you provided does not equal "the plan can't work".

just sayin'...

 

[Mycroft]

Woah! Even Fox News anchorman Chris Wallace, is unwilling to accept the prevarications and diversions being offered up by the Romney campaign. Wallace challenged Gillespie on the Romney/Ryan claim that “six different studies have said this is entirely doable,” that you can lower taxes by cutting deductions, without increasing the deficit. Only one of the six actually qualifies as a "study", the others being blog posts and op ed pieces. Wallace noted these facts.



Others in the media have written of the "non-true" claims being made by the Romney people about the so-called tax plans being offered up.

I found Mr. Gillespie's responses to be quite reasonable and acceptable.

 

[Bronson]

It's called "Economic Growth" libs

I understand that is something you people aren't familiar with. We've all been experiencing the lack of it as a result of your economic policies over the last 4 years.

 

[CedarBear]

"Called out'?

Looked like a good reporter asking good questions to me.

Now post the Axelrod interview on the same show.

 

[AdamT]

The quote you provided does not equal "the plan can't work".

just sayin'...

It absolutely means that the plan, as constituted, can't work. It means, specifically, that the numbers don't add up unless Romney breaks one of his promises.

 

[Somerville]

I found Mr. Gillespie's responses to be quite reasonable and acceptable.

That's funny! :lamo :spin: :lamo

 

[pbrauer]

I found Mr. Gillespie's responses to be quite reasonable and acceptable.

To the gullible, I think they would. :coffeepap


Romney’s ‘Six Studies’ Validating Tax Math Face Growing Scrutiny | TPMDC

 

[AdamT]

To the gullible, I think they would. :coffeepap

That must be some good Koolaid he's serving.

 

[Bronson]

It absolutely means that the plan, as constituted, can't work. It means, specifically, that the numbers don't add up unless Romney breaks one of his promises.

Not at all

Try using Logic and Reasoning instead of Emotion next time

https://www.princeton.edu/ceps/workingpapers/228rosen.pdf

This thread is laughable desperation. Obama adds more than 5 trillion to the National Debt within 4 years and suddenly the Left is twisting themselves in knots trying to make the math add up

 

[Somerville]

Yep, even the right wing American Enterprise Institute admits that the plan can't work:

The quote you provided does not equal "the plan can't work".

just sayin'...

I must say Mycroft is correct in this matter because to date the Romney tax "plan" has been many things to many constituencies - so the 20% cut that has been so trumpeted by the Romney/Ryan campaign is just another flexible statement by the Etch-a-Sketch crowd.

The Definitive Timeline Of Romney’s Ever-Evolving Tax Plan

just a few recent notes from the "Timeline"

9/25/12: Romney Adviser Admits The Plan Doesn’t Work

Romney adviser Kevin Hassett, also a fellow at AEI, says that if Romney can’t pay for his plan by eliminating deductions, he “would have a different change in rates.” That is, the tax cut would be smaller.

10/3/12: Romney Proposes A New Idea — It Still Doesn’t Work

Ahead of the debate, Romney floats a new idea to pay for his plan: he will cap the amount of deductions each taxpayer can use at $17,000. This proposal would still fall well short of paying for Romney’s plan, according to TPC. And worse, it could curtail deductions for housing and health care that benefit the middle class.

10/9/12: Romney Tweaks His Newest Idea, Making His Tax Math Even ‘Fuzzier’

On CNN, Romney adopts the idea to cap tax deductions he proposed just a week earlier. Instead of capping deductions at $17,000, he’ll now cap them at either $25,000 or $50,000. As the Washington Post’s Suzy Khimm notes, though, this makes the math of Romney’s tax plan even harder to work out. Placing the cap at $25,000, the Tax Policy Center found, would make it possible to avoid raising taxes on the middle class. It would also generate significantly less revenue. Placing it at $50,000, though, would render it irrelevant, since even taxpayers in the top 1 percent averaged only $43,208 in deductions last year.

 

[Somerville]

Not at all

Try using Logic and Reasoning instead of Emotion next time

https://www.princeton.edu/ceps/workingpapers/228rosen.pdf

This thread is laughable desperation. Obama adds more than 5 trillion to the National Debt within 4 years and suddenly the Left is twisting themselves in knots trying to make the math add up

Prof Rosen's study makes some unwarranted assumptions as to the economic impact of further reducing tax rates. Assumptions built on Hayekian dreams but not on actual history.


So yes, I agree - Try using Logic and Reasoning instead of Emotion next time.

 

[Fisher]

How can one say with straight face that the detailed numbers someone doesn't give them don't add up? Pick an argument :lamo

 

[Jonsa]

It's called "Economic Growth" libs

I understand that is something you people aren't familiar with. We've all been experiencing the lack of it as a result of your economic policies over the last 4 years.

Yes his "plan" is almost completely dependent on economic growth. Unfortunately his plan to achieve that growth isn't going to do it overnight.

1. Energy independence by 2020. Well considering the amount of time it takes to bring oil wells on line, to retrofit coal generating stations, to build hydro electric plants, to build gas/oil pipelines, the bulk of the jobs won't even being to be created for at least 5 years. So in his first term, this part of the plan isn't going to contribute significantly to growth.

2. Open up trade. Oh yes, the last three free trade deals signed by obama all originated in the early 2000's. On average it take about 8 years to negotiate and ratify (on both sides) before implementation - so they won't contribute much to growth for quite some time. And "confronting cheats" like china sounds real good, until you insult them and a trade war breaks out. I think when the reality of international trade negotiations sinks in and he realizes it doesn't operate like a business board room, he'll have to revise that strategy a tad. In the meantime, that won't contribute much to growth even if he is successful.

3. Better training, better schools, better access to post secondary schools, match unemployed to real world jobs. SAY WHAT? He's going to shut down the dept of education, cut pel grants, and amongst initial few years of ensuing chaos, he'll be able to structure new training programs? Exactly how will he match unemployed to real world jobs when there will be no federal coordination? The effects of better schools and higher education cannot be felt for years if not decades, so they won't have much impact on growth.

4. cutting the deficit, reducing government size, "controlling" the debt. How will the recessionary effects of cutting spending and government be compensated for? "controlling the debt" is a joke since his "plan" calls for a 20 trillion debt in 2020. so that is going to exacerbate unemployment in the short to medium term.

5. Champion small business, reduce taxes and regulations. Okay, since taxes on small business are already at a record low, the argument that reducing them further is going to stimulate employment is debatable in the extreme. As for cutting regulations, that is a good thing, but that to is going to take quite some time so even if he starts an assessment of regulations on his first day in office, its going to take a year or two to be implemented and another year or two to begin reaping the benefits.


So, how exactly in his first term will he be able to achieve the very aggressive growth rates required to give his plan's arithmetic a chance of working? I don't see how he can wave a magic wand and deliver. It just doesn't pass the smell test.

 

[Bronson]

Yes his "plan" is almost completely dependent on economic growth. Unfortunately his plan to achieve that growth isn't going to do it overnight.

Obama has had 4 years and his "recovery" was worse than the recession. If the environment is right for economic growth, it won't take as much time as you believe. The problem with the Economy is Obama. Removing him from office will create HUGE incentives to spur massive economic growth.

1. Energy independence by 2020. Well considering the amount of time it takes to bring oil wells on line, to retrofit coal generating stations, to build hydro electric plants, to build gas/oil pipelines, the bulk of the jobs won't even being to be created for at least 5 years. So in his first term, this part of the plan isn't going to contribute significantly to growth.

This is the classic liberal strawman. It will take too long to build the infrastructure so there is no point right? Yet you keep demanding we waste trillions on failed stimuli to build "infrastructure". You want one time expenditures to build a road or a bridge. Private Investment wants to build something that keep generating a profit which in turns keeps people employed. It's sad that I even have to explain these things to you, but why should I be surprised? You're obviously a product of our failed public school system.

2. Open up trade. Oh yes, the last three free trade deals signed by obama all originated in the early 2000's. On average it take about 8 years to negotiate and ratify (on both sides) before implementation - so they won't contribute much to growth for quite some time. And "confronting cheats" like china sounds real good, until you insult them and a trade war breaks out. I think when the reality of international trade negotiations sinks in and he realizes it doesn't operate like a business board room, he'll have to revise that strategy a tad. In the meantime, that won't contribute much to growth even if he is successful.

Again, you're only "argument" is that it will take too much time to set it up. That's like claiming it will take too long to build a football stadium so why bother even having a team.

3. Better training, better schools, better access to post secondary schools, match unemployed to real world jobs. SAY WHAT? He's going to shut down the dept of education, cut pel grants, and amongst initial few years of ensuing chaos, he'll be able to structure new training programs? Exactly how will he match unemployed to real world jobs when there will be no federal coordination? The effects of better schools and higher education cannot be felt for years if not decades, so they won't have much impact on growth.

You're operating in a false premise. Our schools are a total joke. Did you know that Public Schools are advertising in China? The Chinese Elite pay big bucks to send their kids to our public schools. Meanwhile minorities and American Children are crowded out. They have a monopoly on this practice without any competition to break up the monopoly. And again, your supposed argument is that it will take too long, so why bother. I don't really see you doing anything more here than tossing out broad generalities, dismissing them, and then pretending you have an argument.

4. cutting the deficit, reducing government size, "controlling" the debt. How will the recessionary effects of cutting spending and government be compensated for? "controlling the debt" is a joke since his "plan" calls for a 20 trillion debt in 2020. so that is going to exacerbate unemployment in the short to medium term.

His plan calls for what? You're just repeating Daily Kos talking points. Emotional platitudes. Empty Headed Rhetoric.

Here's Obama's "Plan"

5. Champion small business, reduce taxes and regulations. Okay, since taxes on small business are already at a record low, the argument that reducing them further is going to stimulate employment is debatable in the extreme. As for cutting regulations, that is a good thing, but that to is going to take quite some time so even if he starts an assessment of regulations on his first day in office, its going to take a year or two to be implemented and another year or two to begin reaping the benefits.

Taxes on small businesses are at a record low? Are you kidding me right now? Look I'd love to have a conversation with you but you're not entitled to your own reality. Here are the facts:

Why the health-care ruling may stop franchises from opening new stores, creating new jobs - The Washington Post

Not a Tax: IRS to Hire Thousands of New Agents to Enforce ObamaCare

Ruling on Health Care Impacting Small Business in RI | WPRI.com

Small businesses worry about health law’s unknowns | KCAW

Small Business on Obamacare: No Reason to Hire or Invest - US Business News - CNBC

Negative Reactions from Local Small Business - WLNS TV 6 Lansing - Jackson | Your Local News Leader

Small biz must mull costs, choices following health care ruling - Nashville Business Journal

Tampa Bay area businesses offer mixed reaction to court's decision on Obamacare - Tampa Bay Times

So, how exactly in his first term will he be able to achieve the very aggressive growth rates required to give his plan's arithmetic a chance of working? I don't see how he can wave a magic wand and deliver. It just doesn't pass the smell test.

Because you don't understand economics. That's not Romney's problem. It's your problem.

 

[Travis007]

Prof Rosen's study makes some unwarranted assumptions as to the economic impact of further reducing tax rates. Assumptions built on Hayekian dreams but not on actual history.


So yes, I agree - Try using Logic and Reasoning instead of Emotion next time.

again.. Obama math on taxing us is proven to fail.. but you like Fail.. so Obama is your guy..

Youre desperate and wrong... congrats!

 

[Jonsa]

Obama has had 4 years and his "recovery" was worse than the recession. If the environment is right for economic growth, it won't take as much time as you believe. The problem with the Economy is Obama. Removing him from office will create HUGE incentives to spur massive economic growth.

The evironment is not right for economic growth. Look around at the world. Your premise of removing obama will create huge incentives smells like bigotry more than a sound economic forecast.

This is the classic liberal strawman. It will take too long to build the infrastructure so there is no point right? Yet you keep demanding we waste trillions on failed stimuli to build "infrastructure". You want one time expenditures to build a road or a bridge. Private Investment wants to build something that keep generating a profit which in turns keeps people employed. It's sad that I even have to explain these things to you, but why should I be surprised? You're obviously a product of our failed public school system.

Wrong!! Nowhere do I say there's no point. I merely point out that this area that is supposed to contribute to the aggressive growth numbers romney's plan calls for isn't going to contribute much. Investing in pipelines, natural gas, alternative energies, clean coal etc are all positive economic contributors, but like I said the bennie are a ways out.

Your condescension is unwarranted and in this case unwise. If you are so economically naive to not understand what infrastructure investment contributes to economic growth, then it is you that is challenged. Actually your statement is rather astonishingly ignorant, but hey, you went to an american public school. I sure as hell didn't.

Again, you're only "argument" is that it will take too much time to set it up. That's like claiming it will take too long to build a football stadium so why bother even having a team.

Wrong again. I'm not saying don't do it, I am saying that as ROMNEY himself has outlined his plan for prosperity and 12 million jobs, that the bennies from this part of the plan are years out. I guess you have trouble actually understanding the premise.

You're operating in a false premise. Our schools are a total joke. Did you know that Public Schools are advertising in China? The Chinese Elite pay big bucks to send their kids to our public schools. Meanwhile minorities and American Children are crowded out. They have a monopoly on this practice without any competition to break up the monopoly. And again, your supposed argument is that it will take too long, so why bother. I don't really see you doing anything more here than tossing out broad generalities, dismissing them, and then pretending you have an argument.

What are you talking about? American elementary and high schools lag seriously behind most of the other industrialized nations. America still has the cream of the crop when it comes to universities but that comes with a price - the most expensive schools on the planet. AS for broad generalities, read Romney's plan.. Amazing that you think that Romney et.al. can turn around american schools by waving his wand and voila the graduates coming out are instantly better educated and prepared for the changing economy. That takes time even if you are Mitt.
Your rebuttals are getting weaker and weaker.

His plan calls for what? You're just repeating Daily Kos talking points. Emotional platitudes. Empty Headed Rhetoric.

You really should try to undestand what you are talking about before making a fool of yourself.

Taxes on small businesses are at a record low? Are you kidding me right now? Look I'd love to have a conversation with you but you're not entitled to your own reality. Here are the facts:

Obama care will increase taxes on small business, over the next few years. Okay so look at this link. You will see that business taxes are lower than at any time since 1940. So, an increase for healthcare tax isn't as devastating as the scare mongers would have us all believe.

us-tax-rates-1916-2010/

Because you don't understand economics. That's not Romney's problem. It's your problem.

As long as romney has supporters with your depth of understanding of basic economics, he'll be able to lie to them with impunity.

When you wish to condescend, it is strongly suggested you do so from a position of strength, not of ignorance.

 

[Mycroft]

Yes his "plan" is almost completely dependent on economic growth. Unfortunately his plan to achieve that growth isn't going to do it overnight.

1. Energy independence by 2020. Well considering the amount of time it takes to bring oil wells on line, to retrofit coal generating stations, to build hydro electric plants, to build gas/oil pipelines, the bulk of the jobs won't even being to be created for at least 5 years. So in his first term, this part of the plan isn't going to contribute significantly to growth.

2. Open up trade. Oh yes, the last three free trade deals signed by obama all originated in the early 2000's. On average it take about 8 years to negotiate and ratify (on both sides) before implementation - so they won't contribute much to growth for quite some time. And "confronting cheats" like china sounds real good, until you insult them and a trade war breaks out. I think when the reality of international trade negotiations sinks in and he realizes it doesn't operate like a business board room, he'll have to revise that strategy a tad. In the meantime, that won't contribute much to growth even if he is successful.

3. Better training, better schools, better access to post secondary schools, match unemployed to real world jobs. SAY WHAT? He's going to shut down the dept of education, cut pel grants, and amongst initial few years of ensuing chaos, he'll be able to structure new training programs? Exactly how will he match unemployed to real world jobs when there will be no federal coordination? The effects of better schools and higher education cannot be felt for years if not decades, so they won't have much impact on growth.

4. cutting the deficit, reducing government size, "controlling" the debt. How will the recessionary effects of cutting spending and government be compensated for? "controlling the debt" is a joke since his "plan" calls for a 20 trillion debt in 2020. so that is going to exacerbate unemployment in the short to medium term.

5. Champion small business, reduce taxes and regulations. Okay, since taxes on small business are already at a record low, the argument that reducing them further is going to stimulate employment is debatable in the extreme. As for cutting regulations, that is a good thing, but that to is going to take quite some time so even if he starts an assessment of regulations on his first day in office, its going to take a year or two to be implemented and another year or two to begin reaping the benefits.


So, how exactly in his first term will he be able to achieve the very aggressive growth rates required to give his plan's arithmetic a chance of working? I don't see how he can wave a magic wand and deliver. It just doesn't pass the smell test.

It doesn't pass the smell test because, like most liberals, your nose is in the wrong place.

Show where Romney has ever said he will be able to do these things in his first term. Or else, admit that you are placing your own arbitrary demands and conditions upon him...and then complaining when you don't think he can meet them.

 

[Boo Radley]

I found Mr. Gillespie's responses to be quite reasonable and acceptable.

I'm shocked I tells ya, just shocked.


:coffeepap

 

[Boo Radley]

There are two reasons for not presenting too much detail (or nearly any):

1. They truly plan on closing real loopholes and know that such will not play well. This is unlikely as it would have political fallout. I would praise such an action but there is good reason to doubt it.

2. There is no real plan to close anything significant enough to make a dent and thus will only really make things easier on the wealthy. They will pass the buck and then blame others when nothing happens. This is a time worn tactic that both parties have learned how to use expertly.

 

[Mycroft]

There are two reasons for not presenting too much detail (or nearly any):

1. They truly plan on closing real loopholes and know that such will not play well. This is unlikely as it would have political fallout. I would praise such an action but there is good reason to doubt it.

2. There is no real plan to close anything significant enough to make a dent and thus will only really make things easier on the wealthy. They will pass the buck and then blame others when nothing happens. This is a time worn tactic that both parties have learned how to use expertly.

Another...better and more realistic...reason for few details is that the details depend upon Congress. Romney has expressed very well what he will work towards. Actually getting there depends upon factors beyond his control that he will, nevertheless, attempt to influence. He has a very good record of success with such influencing.

If that's not good enough for you, then you have no business or standing to excuse anything Obama has or has not done, since his favorite excuse is that it's always someone else's fault.

 

[Boo Radley]

Another...better and more realistic...reason for few details is that the details depend upon Congress. Romney has expressed very well what he will work towards. Actually getting there depends upon factors beyond his control that he will, nevertheless, attempt to influence. He has a very good record of success with such influencing.

If that's not good enough for you, then you have no business or standing to excuse anything Obama has or has not done, since his favorite excuse is that it's always someone else's fault.

That can be said of everything, and all reasonable voters know this (which is why complaints about Obama often ring hollow). But we can get a feel for he will push for. What is being asked for is what does he want done. If he states that, and congress defeats his wishes, we know better who is responsible.

 

[Mycroft]

That can be said of everything, and all reasonable voters know this (which is why complaints about Obama often ring hollow). But we can get a feel for he will push for. What is being asked for is what does he want done. If he states that, and congress defeats his wishes, we know better who is responsible.

I'm usually pretty good at inferring intent from badly written posts, but I have to admit that this one is too hard for me to figure out without taking a risk of totally misunderstanding what you are saying. Perhaps you could repeat it...and this time, be clear as to whom and what you are talking about and, maybe, include what I suspect are just plain missing words?

 

[Boo Radley]

I'm usually pretty good at inferring intent from badly written posts, but I have to admit that this one is too hard for me to figure out without taking a risk of totally misunderstanding what you are saying. Perhaps you could repeat it...and this time, be clear as to whom and what you are talking about and, maybe, include what I suspect are just plain missing words?

Every thing a president wants to do goes through congress. No president is king and has to have congress work out the details. This was true for Obama as well, and most of us know this. However, we do need to what he wants done. He can lay out details of what he believes should be done. Most of what few details he mentions so far suggests he really plans on doing very little.