2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumWaPo Editorial: Paul Ryan’s budget flimflam
By Editorial Board, Published: October 1
PAUL RYAN wants to tell you about the wonders of the 20 percent cut in tax rates that he and running mate Mitt Romney propose. He doesnt want to tell you how much it will cost. On Sunday, Fox Newss Chris Wallace asked the Republican vice presidential nominee this basic question four times, citing projections of a 10-year cost of $5 trillion. Four times, Mr. Ryan dodged, hiding behind a flimsy scaffolding of pseudo-wonkiness. Look, I wont give you a baseline with these because thats what a lot of this is about, he said.
The $5 trillion figure derives from an estimate by the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center that the Romney tax cuts without base-broadening offsets would reduce revenue by $456 billion in 2015. Multiply by 10, and account for costs rising each year, and the $5 trillion estimate is probably low.
If Mr. Ryan wants to hide behind jargon, heres a relevant point. Baseline refers to the assumptions made about the budget if the Romney-Ryan tax cut isnt enacted. The Tax Policy Centers baseline is favorable to the Republican plan because it assumes the extension of all Bush tax cuts. A more realistic, or at least equally plausible, set of assumptions would add another $1 trillion to its cost. Mr. Ryan flings about terms such as baseline to obscure that painful fact.
The Republican ticket says it could pay for its tax cut by eliminating loopholes. But the biggest loopholes are popular: the exclusion from taxation of employer-sponsored health insurance and the deductions for mortgage interest, charitable contributions and state and local taxes. Pressed by the assiduous Mr. Wallace about which of these Mr. Ryan would limit, the nominee pleaded a lack of time. It would take me too long to go through all of that, he said.
read more:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/paul-ryans-budget-flim-flam/2012/10/01/b6625396-0be5-11e2-bb5e-492c0d30bff6_story.html?tid=pm_opinions_pop
iemitsu
(3,888 posts)he dodges questions about paying for his plan because no one in this country thinks the rich should get more breaks at the expense of the working and the poor.
americans need to be reminded that working americans have not seen any real wage increases since 1968. that the only way any of us has kept up with the cost of living is to add a full time worker to each household.
and this spoiled young man thinks we are freeloaders. that we should pay more so the obscenely rich can pay less.
they already owe us for the social security money they took with the tax breaks they have seen over the last few decades. they owe us that plus interest.
AZCat
(8,339 posts)"Squealer" - that's the one.
Lefty Thinker
(96 posts)Taxes do not "fund" our government; our government can create money at will (Article II, Section 8 of the Constitution). But if the government only created money, no one would have any intrusive need for dollars. Taxes create that intrinsic need. They also reduce inflationary pressures. Put this up against what Romney/Ryan are suggesting and the picture you get is far bleaker than most economists have offered: more difficulty getting out of debt, stagnant home values, and a stagnant or shrinking economy.
alcibiades_mystery
(36,437 posts)Dude's a fuckin' sophist, no mistake.
Cosmocat
(14,565 posts)this should be the response from the media at large.
These two clowns are running around selling:
20% lower effective rate
tax cuts for all
revenue neutral
These three things simply do not add up.
SO, they dash in:
Closing unspecified loop holes:
You close loop holes to make it revenue neutral, there are not tax cuts, and by extension the pixie dust of tax cuts to spur the economy is gone.
Literally smoke and mirrors.
mojo2012
(290 posts)saying he won't dodge the tough issues?