Thursday, January 19, 2012 5:12:11 AM
Nothing ‘moderate’ about this plan
By Steve Benen
January 17, 2012 3:10 PM
We’ve gotten a fairly good look at the kind of policy agenda Mitt Romney will pursue if elected. It’s not terribly ambitious — certainly nothing on par with “saving the soul of America” — and it’s even less creative.
The basic pitch is straightforward: more tax cuts for the wealthy, free rein for Wall Street, and with the repeal of the Affordable Care Act, taking health coverage away from millions.
But there’s more to it once we factor in the brutal cuts to public spending Romney is promising voters he’d implement. Jonathan Cohn took a closer look [ http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonathan-cohn/99613/romney-conservative-impact-of-capping-federal-spending-20-percent ] at one of my favorite subjects: spending caps. Cohn makes the case that they make Romney’s plan even more offensive that Paul Ryan’s budget plan.
Romney has vowed that, by 2016, he would cap federal spending at 20 percent of gross domestic product while maintaining defense spending at 4 percent of GDP. That means he would limit all non-defense spending to 16 percent of GDP.
The latest Congressional Budget Office projection suggests that GDP in 2016 will be $19.1 trillion. Sixteen percent of that is about $3.1 trillion. But, based on CBO figures, non-defense spending will be about $3.6 trillion in 2016. So to meet his goals, Romney would have to cut non-defense federal spending in 2016 by roughly $500 billion. […]
Taking half a trillion dollars out of $3.6 trillion works out to a 14 percent reduction. (To be precise, it would be 14.1 percent.) Applied equally to all non-defense spending, that would mean approximately $130 billion less for Social Security and about $90 billion less for Medicare, just in 2016 alone.
If Romney exempts Medicare and Social Security from his budget hatchet — and he might — that would mean at least 25% cuts for literally everything else outside the Pentagon budget. What would that include? You name it — law enforcement, infrastructure, medical research, environmental protections, food stamps, student loans, etc.
And as Jonathan noted, these brutal cuts would be “in addition to the automatic cuts already set to take effect in January, 2013, now that the deficit super-committee has failed to reach a consensus.”
There’s a word to describe budget plans like this: “radical.”
This isn’t a Bush-like agenda; it’s much more right-wing. And for those “banking on the re-flip [ http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal/2012_01/banking_on_the_reflip034746.php ],” it’s worth remembering, as Jonathan Bernstein explained [ http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/magazine/january_february_2012/features/campaign_promises034471.php ] in the Monthly’s new print edition, presidential candidates tend to pursue the agendas they present to voters during the campaign. If Romney wins, he’ll think he has a mandate to push these crushing cuts to public investments and the safety net.
As recently as a few days ago, the former governor was assuring voters [ http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal/2012_01/an_odd_way_of_showing_concern034762.php ], “I’m concerned about the poor in this country. We have to make sure the safety net is strong and able to help those who can’t help themselves.” What he neglected to mention was his plan to tear that safety net to shreds.
Much of the political establishment still considers Romney one of the “moderates” of the Republican presidential field. By general temperament, that might make some degree of sense. But temperament is irrelevant when compared to platforms — and one look at Romney’s budget plan makes clear there’s nothing moderate about this guy’s agenda.
© 2012 Copyright Washington Monthly
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal/2012_01/nothing_moderate_about_this_pl034810.php [with comments]
===
Mitt Romney’s Tax Plan in 5 Charts
Republican presidential candidate and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney delivers remarks at the Heritage Foundation in June 2009.
AP/Manuel Balce Ceneta
By Michael Linden, Seth Hanlon | January 12, 2012
If you liked former President George W. Bush’s tax policies, then you’ll love Mitt Romney’s.
Republican presidential candidate Romney’s plan for federal taxation begins with a hefty portion of Bush-era tax policy: Permanently extend all the tax cuts passed in 2001 and 2003, including those that mainly benefit the extremely wealthy. Then Romney layers on a heaping batch of new tax cuts for the rich, including a full repeal of the estate tax—which is currently paid by only the richest 0.14 percent of estates—and a massive corporate tax cut.
The result is a tax code that asks even less of the rich than George W. Bush’s did.
Just like President Bush, Romney’s tax plan doesn’t come close to being fiscally responsible. Under President Bush, average annual tax revenue as a share of gross domestic product was the lowest it had been under any president since Harry Truman—just 17.6 percent of GDP. Romney’s tax plan would result in average revenues of only 16.5 percent.
Strangely, Romney’s tax plan has been described as “moderate” or “timid.” Compared to the full-tilt insanity of the plans of some of his fellow Republican presidential candidates (9-9-9! 15 percent flat tax!), it’s true that Romney’s plan appears more reasonable. But back here in the real world, Romney’s plan is an enormously irresponsible giveaway to the rich, boasting a tax cut for millionaires twice the size of President Bush’s. There’s nothing moderate about that.
The charts below illustrate five key points about Romney’s plan:
¦ It would deliver twice as many tax cuts to the rich as did Bush’s tax plan.
¦ It would pile on more tax cuts focused almost exclusively on the wealthy.
¦ It would not balance the federal budget.
¦ It would increase taxes for the middle class and working families.
¦ It would leave all corporate tax loopholes and tax breaks intact.
Clearly Romney’s plan doesn’t accomplish anything he claims it will: It won’t help middle-class families. It won’t balance the budget. And it continues to coddle the wealthy.
If he really wants to be moderate, he’s going to have to do better than that.
Michael Linden is the Director of Tax and Budget Policy and Seth Hanlon is Director of Fiscal Reform at the Center for American Progress Action Fund.
*
Download the charts (pdf)
http://americanprogressaction.org/issues/2012/01/pdf/romney_tax_chart.pdf
See also:
Romney’s Fiscal Agenda for the 1 Percent by Michael Linden
http://www.americanprogressaction.org/issues/2011/12/romney_fiscal_agenda.html
*
© Center for American Progress Action Fund
http://www.americanprogressaction.org/issues/2012/01/romney_tax_plan.html
By Steve Benen
January 17, 2012 3:10 PM
We’ve gotten a fairly good look at the kind of policy agenda Mitt Romney will pursue if elected. It’s not terribly ambitious — certainly nothing on par with “saving the soul of America” — and it’s even less creative.
The basic pitch is straightforward: more tax cuts for the wealthy, free rein for Wall Street, and with the repeal of the Affordable Care Act, taking health coverage away from millions.
But there’s more to it once we factor in the brutal cuts to public spending Romney is promising voters he’d implement. Jonathan Cohn took a closer look [ http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonathan-cohn/99613/romney-conservative-impact-of-capping-federal-spending-20-percent ] at one of my favorite subjects: spending caps. Cohn makes the case that they make Romney’s plan even more offensive that Paul Ryan’s budget plan.
Romney has vowed that, by 2016, he would cap federal spending at 20 percent of gross domestic product while maintaining defense spending at 4 percent of GDP. That means he would limit all non-defense spending to 16 percent of GDP.
The latest Congressional Budget Office projection suggests that GDP in 2016 will be $19.1 trillion. Sixteen percent of that is about $3.1 trillion. But, based on CBO figures, non-defense spending will be about $3.6 trillion in 2016. So to meet his goals, Romney would have to cut non-defense federal spending in 2016 by roughly $500 billion. […]
Taking half a trillion dollars out of $3.6 trillion works out to a 14 percent reduction. (To be precise, it would be 14.1 percent.) Applied equally to all non-defense spending, that would mean approximately $130 billion less for Social Security and about $90 billion less for Medicare, just in 2016 alone.
If Romney exempts Medicare and Social Security from his budget hatchet — and he might — that would mean at least 25% cuts for literally everything else outside the Pentagon budget. What would that include? You name it — law enforcement, infrastructure, medical research, environmental protections, food stamps, student loans, etc.
And as Jonathan noted, these brutal cuts would be “in addition to the automatic cuts already set to take effect in January, 2013, now that the deficit super-committee has failed to reach a consensus.”
There’s a word to describe budget plans like this: “radical.”
This isn’t a Bush-like agenda; it’s much more right-wing. And for those “banking on the re-flip [ http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal/2012_01/banking_on_the_reflip034746.php ],” it’s worth remembering, as Jonathan Bernstein explained [ http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/magazine/january_february_2012/features/campaign_promises034471.php ] in the Monthly’s new print edition, presidential candidates tend to pursue the agendas they present to voters during the campaign. If Romney wins, he’ll think he has a mandate to push these crushing cuts to public investments and the safety net.
As recently as a few days ago, the former governor was assuring voters [ http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal/2012_01/an_odd_way_of_showing_concern034762.php ], “I’m concerned about the poor in this country. We have to make sure the safety net is strong and able to help those who can’t help themselves.” What he neglected to mention was his plan to tear that safety net to shreds.
Much of the political establishment still considers Romney one of the “moderates” of the Republican presidential field. By general temperament, that might make some degree of sense. But temperament is irrelevant when compared to platforms — and one look at Romney’s budget plan makes clear there’s nothing moderate about this guy’s agenda.
© 2012 Copyright Washington Monthly
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal/2012_01/nothing_moderate_about_this_pl034810.php [with comments]
===
Mitt Romney’s Tax Plan in 5 Charts
Republican presidential candidate and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney delivers remarks at the Heritage Foundation in June 2009.
AP/Manuel Balce Ceneta
By Michael Linden, Seth Hanlon | January 12, 2012
If you liked former President George W. Bush’s tax policies, then you’ll love Mitt Romney’s.
Republican presidential candidate Romney’s plan for federal taxation begins with a hefty portion of Bush-era tax policy: Permanently extend all the tax cuts passed in 2001 and 2003, including those that mainly benefit the extremely wealthy. Then Romney layers on a heaping batch of new tax cuts for the rich, including a full repeal of the estate tax—which is currently paid by only the richest 0.14 percent of estates—and a massive corporate tax cut.
The result is a tax code that asks even less of the rich than George W. Bush’s did.
Just like President Bush, Romney’s tax plan doesn’t come close to being fiscally responsible. Under President Bush, average annual tax revenue as a share of gross domestic product was the lowest it had been under any president since Harry Truman—just 17.6 percent of GDP. Romney’s tax plan would result in average revenues of only 16.5 percent.
Strangely, Romney’s tax plan has been described as “moderate” or “timid.” Compared to the full-tilt insanity of the plans of some of his fellow Republican presidential candidates (9-9-9! 15 percent flat tax!), it’s true that Romney’s plan appears more reasonable. But back here in the real world, Romney’s plan is an enormously irresponsible giveaway to the rich, boasting a tax cut for millionaires twice the size of President Bush’s. There’s nothing moderate about that.
The charts below illustrate five key points about Romney’s plan:
¦ It would deliver twice as many tax cuts to the rich as did Bush’s tax plan.
¦ It would pile on more tax cuts focused almost exclusively on the wealthy.
¦ It would not balance the federal budget.
¦ It would increase taxes for the middle class and working families.
¦ It would leave all corporate tax loopholes and tax breaks intact.
Clearly Romney’s plan doesn’t accomplish anything he claims it will: It won’t help middle-class families. It won’t balance the budget. And it continues to coddle the wealthy.
If he really wants to be moderate, he’s going to have to do better than that.
Michael Linden is the Director of Tax and Budget Policy and Seth Hanlon is Director of Fiscal Reform at the Center for American Progress Action Fund.
*
Download the charts (pdf)
http://americanprogressaction.org/issues/2012/01/pdf/romney_tax_chart.pdf
See also:
Romney’s Fiscal Agenda for the 1 Percent by Michael Linden
http://www.americanprogressaction.org/issues/2011/12/romney_fiscal_agenda.html
*
© Center for American Progress Action Fund
http://www.americanprogressaction.org/issues/2012/01/romney_tax_plan.html
Greensburg, KS - 5/4/07
"Eternal vigilance is the price of Liberty."
from John Philpot Curran, Speech
upon the Right of Election, 1790
F6
Join the InvestorsHub Community
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
