« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Governor Romney Teases New Tax Plan Prior to Arizona Debate

Mouth of Sauron Speaks

Prepare yourselves, I am going to write something semi positive about policies that the Romney campaign happens to espouse today, at this hour*.

Today the Romney Campaign is rolling out their new tax plan. Tonight could be a great night for Romney in the debate. While Santorum may get lost in the weeds and off message with the social issues, Romney will be making a push to talk about his new tax plan. If Mitt can change the focus to the economy and lay out the details of his new tax plan, he can leave Santorum stumbling just before AZ and MI vote.

What Gov. Romney is saying in Chandler, AZ today sounds like it has potential. It isn’t a fundamental reform, but I think the whole package will probably look good and be pro growth for sure.

To that point, I consulted the Mouth of Sauron** on Willard’s tax plan, and it sounds pretty solid so far.

  • Make Permanent, Across-The-Board 20 Percent Cut In Marginal Rates, with Reagan’s 28% top rate.
  • Pro Growth cuts – 25% Corporate rate.
  • 15% Capital Gains for those making over $200,000
  • Base broadeners: See Bowles-Simpson
  • Change to a Territorial Tax system

Nothing extremely bold, but some solid reforms. I like that he felt free to steal the territorial tax system from the corpse of the Perry campaign. Of course there are some failures, like retaining the 15% cap gains for those making over $200,000. Despite Rubin’s argument to the contrary, that tax cut is largely meaningless and, more importantly, it takes the battle off our turf validating the class division argument in the process.

Additionally, it seems there is still an unwillingness by Gov. Romney to address Social Security spending in any meaningful way. While the plan calls for repeal of Obamacare, block grants for Medicaid, and premium support for Medicare, Social Security gets an uninspired retirement age increase and is indexed to inflation.

The most concerning part of this plan, and the roll out of it, isn’t even in the plan. In her glorified piece of campaign literature, Rubin dropped this troublesome line:

Romney, unlike some who back flat tax proposals, does not want to see the tax system become less progressive.

Again, Team Romney is clearly on the wrong turf here***. This is still a primary, and he is still trying to be the Republican nominee. You can’t go out and say things like this when most Republicans are for a flattening of the progressive curve, if not an actual flat tax.

And this isn’t an isolated incident either. By way of Zeke Miller of Buzz Feed, we see Romney himself engaging in even more blatant acts of class warfare while also accepting the premise that tax policy should be about enforcing fairness:

“And by the way, I want to make sure you understand that, for middle income families, the deductibility of home mortgage interest and charitable contributions will continue. But for high income folks, we are going to cut back on that, so we make sure the top 1% pay their fair share or more.

snip

The principle of fairness must be preserved in federal tax and spending policy,” his campaign said in a press release. He and Democrats, of course, have a different definition of the term.

Again, the man is fighting on the wrong turf and validating the arguments of his foes. This does not bode well.

I won’t complain too much though, it isn’t a bad plan, it is much better than Obama’s plan – noted by Daniel Horowitz here, and at least it isn’t 59 points.

Gov. Romney has a chance to lead tonight and force a pivot back to the economy, jobs, and tax reform. He has a plan that works and can be explained in the limited time allotted in a debate. The only question is whether Mitt can take command of the debate and make the pitch. If he can’t do that, then he’ll affirm my suspicions that he is actually a weak leader who has benefited more from privilege than actual tenacity, knowledge, and grit.

Aaron B. Gardner

P.S. It really does say something that the Washington Post’s go to person for the Conservative perspective is so comfortable defending the progressive tax system. I shouldn’t be surprised by Rubin’s actions though, when one gladly throws SoCons under the bus Fiscons aren’t usually far behind. Jenn Rubin should drop the act and save us all a lot of trouble.

* I am sure this will change.

** Jenn Rubin is a surrogate for Team Romney, this really isn’t up for dispute.

*** Yes, I know those are Rubin’s words, refer to the above note.

Get Alerts

COMMENTS

  • jon11

    from the WSJ:

    A source in the Romney campaign says the former Massachusetts governor also plans to draw a contrast with Rick Santorum’s tax cut proposals. Specifically, Mr. Romney will point out that Mr. Santorum’s proposal for a zero tax rate for manufacturing is a form of industrial policy that isn’t much different than the kind practiced by Mr. Obama in picking energy winners and losers. This is right on the merits, and it will let Mr. Romney stand against another lobbying free-for-all to define what qualifies as “manufacturing.”

    On the subject of Jennifer Rubin:

    The washington post is a left wing paper.

    to their readership, and to the vast majority of the country, republicans still count as conservatives. They all think she is covering the right.

    I’ve noticed a lot of people here say ‘conservative’ when they mean ‘tea-party.’

    not the same thing.

    Now, i’ve haven’t been reading her very long. If she said initially that her mission was to explain the tea party movement to lefties, i’d understand the frustration.

    Anyway most people here are openly contemptuous of Romney. She’s openly contemptuous of the not-romneys.

    which really makes no better or worse than most redstate posters.

  • http://alt2p.org Brookhaven

    He’s just saying whatever he thinks people want to hear.

  • quill67

    Wow, this will really get the economy going… Gingrich suggests a 12.5% corporate rate while Santorum offers a 17.5% rate with 0% rate on manufacturers.

    Which will create more jobs? Which will force government to shrink more. Are people really going to think that Romney’s 3% lower rate is going to make a big difference.

    While reducing capital gains is good, not touching the corupt tax code shows Romney just spent too long in tax loving Mass.

  • Aaron Gardner

    Also, Romney does go after the code somewhat if he is talking about implementing Bowles-Simpson.

    I am not a fan of protectionist policies that pick which industries to help via the tax code.

    I don’t like defending Romney, and I don’t think his plan is perfect, but I think it is a decent plan when you look at it objectively.

  • zachv

    The wo/man who gets tax simplification through Congress is going to be my hero. No word if Romney actually supports doing such.

  • http://alt2p.org Brookhaven

    Business taxes are either passed on to the consumer in the form of higher prices, or to the business shareholder in the form of lower dividends.

    The business tax should be zero (0, nada, nothing).

    The tax should be applied when the money is removed from the business in the form of dividends.

  • elayman

    Although Romney was touting it with the jobs initivative last Sept so that feature of the plan must have been from Huntsman since Perry hadn’t released his tax reform proposal yet (I don’t think).

  • quill67

    So I’m not impressed on that.

    I admit, the territorial tax system could have a very big effect and is smart policy. (Many of the countries with whom we compete pay 0% tax on any earnings from overseas compared to our 35%)

    Reducing tax rates is not protectionist. We get to decide how we tax our industries. To understand the problem consider how cities decide to tax: Why don’t they collect only sales taxes? Perhaps a city could fund all its operations if they just taxed all goods at

    We all know what would happen. Many businesses located in the city would lose customers to lower tax areas. Sure, you might buy your dinner in the city with a 15% sales tax, but most people will do most of their shopping in the lower tax areas.

    The same thing is happening with manufacturing in the US. Other places in the world offer a much lower tax on their earnings and since manufacturers can locate anywhere, they choose to locate outside the US and its 35% tax rate (or 25% tax rate). The result is production that would have taken place in the US without the tax, is moved overseas.

    Santorum’s policy makes sense.

  • carolina

    I’d like to think he will attack the class warfare parts of this plan.
    At least this is a step in the right direction.

  • kentucky

    is that this new tax plan no longer has him at odds with Congressional Republicans. This plan is probably closer to what would come through Congress than any of the other plans by other candidates.

  • clintonformccain

    in an election year. There’s just nothing to be gained by touching the third rail of American politics, knowing that the Dems will run TV ads of you pushing granny’s wheelchair off the cliff. It doesn’t get you any extra votes in the general election and costs you votes in key swing states like Florida.

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    I mean, look at you. You’re an unrepentant Clinton fan. That says it *all* about your judgement.

  • acat

    If she’s sitting on a pile near as big as what Granny McBotox (a.k.a. Pelosi) has .. then means testing passes both the GOP *and* #OWS sniff tests.

    And you know what happens to Social Security and Medicare if we means test them, right?

    Mew

  • clintonformccain

    It was about the Republican candidate effectively positioning to beat Barack Hussein Obama in November,

    I am, BTW, a category of indpendent voter that the Republican nominee must win in November to beat Obama. The math simply doesn’t work without independents.

  • red_oakster

    This is about the minimum Romney must offer to stay in the game. But for his inability to seal the deal, I fear he would not even be offering this.

    Color me skeptical of Willard.

  • clintonformccain

    Now for a Republican leaning independent to be “Republican” enough, I guess he has to belong to Protestant church that is “still Christian” and be do pendance for all prior election booth sins. Sheesh. :)

  • Dave_A

    It’s to make a ‘deal’ with the working age population, for support in eliminating the program for future generations.

    1) Promise that everyone who is currently enrolled in Social Security will receive benefits at current levels and age-ranges, unless they voluntarily drop out.

    2) Offer a two-year period during which anyone can leave Social Security & be exempt from the FICA tax for life – at the cost of forfeiting claim to any SS benefits

    3) Stop enrolling children born after the date of enactment. Issue TINs instead of SSNs universally.

  • acat

    Case in point .. myself.

    Mew

  • acat

    that’d put Social Security *deep* into the red within 2 years, right?

    The program shares one significant characteristic with a classic Ponzi scheme .. if there aren’t any later participants, the early participants stop getting paid!

    (this is why, in the classic Ponzi, at some point the ringleader cuts and runs with a suitcase full of ca$h)

    Al Gore’s “Lock Box” is full of nothing but government bonds that must be redeemed against the general fund, i.e. income tax and tariff revenue etc. If everyone under 40 opts out, SS would burn through the “lock box” very quickly.. and the burden of payments to everyone over 55 would start eating into the general fund.

    This solution would have worked when Pete DuPont first offered it, but now it’s too late.

    Mew

  • carolina

    The govt is supposed to get the same level of revenue under the Romney plan.

  • jakeofalltrades

    You can’t have a universal ponzi scheme without an ever-increasing population. The social welfare state and suppressed birth rates cannot coexist for long.

    Liberalism is unsustainable.

  • acat

    (null)

  • Dave_A

    Personally, I think there shouldn’t be a corporate income tax – the govt can ‘get at’ corporate profits when they are paid out as salary or dividends….

    Also, a ZERO corporate income tax for any corp HQed in the US, would allow us to attract multinational HQs from the world-over, bringing in the *right* kind of jobs for America’s future (White-collar office jobs), a/o trying to ‘bring back’ the wrong kind (manual-labor manufacturing).

    But I’ll take any tax reduction that’s being put on the table….

  • Dave_A

    Would mean feeding those benefits out of the general fund, and with the money abandoned by those folks who bail out….

    I suspect that almost everyone under age 45 would probably take the opt-out offer – I sure as hell would…

    The point is finding a way to wind the Ponzi scheme down, with minimal impact….

    Everyone is willing to fight for ‘their benefits’ – but when faced with the option of ‘benefit reductions, but the program will be there for your grandkids’ vs ‘You get yours, Social Security goes away for the generation born after this date’…

    It’s sellable.

  • Dave_A

    That’s slightly more politically palatable than a condom ban…

    Bonus, Pat Buchanan’s head would explode…

  • acat

    We’re still going to have to cut other Fed programs to make up the difference.

    I’m fine with cutting the Department of Transportation into little, bitty pieces – mostly redistributed to the States, but with specific parts (FAA, forex) going to Dept. of Defense.

    Mew

  • acat

    Just to be sure.

    Mew

  • greyeagle

    Yes Perry released his plan before he dropped out of the campaign.

  • greyeagle

    His tax plan not great. But it is the other things he would do like not repeal Obamacare, that would keep me from voting for him.

  • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

    and stop making any pretense of “immigration enforcement”.

  • texasref

    who needs hobbits?

  • aesthete

    You cut current voters’ benefits, and suddenly you’re condemning grandma to eat cat food — never mind that grandma has a much higher quality of life than the people funding her retirement, vacations in Mexico every year, has been doing nothing since retirement at 65, etc.

    It’s not possible to cut benefits of people receiving or about to receive benefits, because they’re the ones who votes. You are correct that there will still be a shortfall (one that will likely have to be accounted for by discretionary, DoD, and other cuts), but it’s the most realistic bet at this point.

  • lineholder

    Why else would he be making any effort at all to shift to what would be considered a more “fiscally conservative” economic plan?

    It’s a starting point…probably more than he was willing to concede at the beginning of the primary season.

  • Common_Cents

    Romney reminded me of John Lovitz in tonights debate.

    Repeating gingrich’s answers saying….”yeahhhhh, thattttss the ticket!”

  • krish

    Higher minimum wage one day, class warfare the next day saying that the rich are doing very well, new tax policy this AM, & later during the debate tonight when Rick asked his class warfare rhetoric he flip flopped that 1% also will get tax cut…….come on now…writing an article about this & wasting your & everybody’s time!!

  • acat

    I’m hoping we can press for some reasonable cuts and maybe actual reforms …

    Mew

  • texasref

    Let me write a check to Mittens right now.

  • Juggernaut

    going to make us more competitive than China because the Chinese rate is 25% and they have cheaper labor rates and Romney still plans a trade war….a war that leads to economic decline. At best this plan is more conservative than his first plan. The fact he had to retool shows Romney does not understand the economy nor care to put out bold plans. I’ll wait till I’ve read more but thus far Newt is the only one with a 15% corporate plan that accelerates corporate growth.

  • Dave_A

    ntxt….

  • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

    paying into SS.

    Personally, I’d rather privatize it.

  • lineholder

    to make that particular shift, isn’t it?

    And I should have included sarc targets in my comments above, LOL.

  • texasref

    over how blind the Republican primary electorate is about how the one who can take it to Obama is sitting right in front of us…

    cheerfully.