Is it a real plan or a political device? Note the analytical papers upon which the plan is based. (go here)
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........ 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.
It seems as though Romney's tax plan is taking more and more blows. It has been one of the most debated issues among the media and among voters, and it is very interesting to see this article, which goes beyond most of the criticism. For a while now, especially after the first debate, people have been quick to point out that neither Romney nor Ryan have been able to actually explain the details of their tax plan. Ryan had the popular "I don't have time to show you the math" comment. However, this article really points out the flaws in the support system that they have claimed to have had this whole time. I didn't know the details about these so called "sources" until seeing this article, which makes it seem like an even less credible plan now.
ReplyDeletePerhaps this is why the Obama campaign was so disappointed with his performance at the first debate. If he would have done a better job of laying this point out to the American people, this election may look a lot different. Instead the race seems to be more about Obama not getting the job done, and anything else would at least be an improvement. In the latter case, Romney's actual plan is irrelevant, as long as its not the current plan, people are ready to jump on board.
ReplyDeleteIt was interesting to actually read the mathematical breakdown in regards to Romney's tax plan. As Alex pointed out, I had also only heard that it was not a feasible plan and that Ryan said he didn't have time to explain. I personally have just had a gut feeling all along that it was too good to be true and that someone would disprove the plan sooner or later. Looking at the six studies and seeing how different ones conclude different outcomes just leaves me feeling as if politics are so bias. Scholars whom are supposed to analyze each leave out key details; so either they are all being lazy or all being bias.
ReplyDeleteThe idea of quoting a blog-post, seems absolutely absurd. In the sciences, sourcing information from anything less than the most prominent peer reviewed journals brings an immediate level of skepticism to your work. Even the most basic of reports are dismissed. Now put in perspective, a potential president of the united states is quoting blog-posts in his development of a multi-trillion dollar tax cut effecting hundreds of millions of people. Maybe we should have the peer review process applied to the political sphere.
ReplyDeleteThese particular studies simply prove what nearly every politician seems to do in an attempt to gain votes. Instead of proving how their plan works, it seems as if many politicians such as Romney try to say what they believe the public wants to hear. These "plans" that they claim will drastically change our current state are not given any backing or evidence by candidates. In my opinion, they are using these claims to win their seat in office regardless of their truth or practicality.
ReplyDeleteAs the debate this past Thursday highlighted, there are economists and mathematics that say this plan is impossible. The Romney/Ryan argument to this is that 6 separate studies confirm it. However these 'studies' are more like opinions and the sad thing is--no one but political pundits and journalists have highlighted this fact. The American people does very little to question its detail, and this is especially disappointing. Given that at least 30-40% of people in recent surveys support Romney, they should at least have positive confirmation of the entirety of his budget planning for America.
ReplyDeleteWhen an independent, apolitically affiliated organization like the Tax Policy Center tells you, your tax plan will not work--perhaps its time to reorganize your data. The 6 'studies' that have been cited in numerous political discussions are appalling in terms of credibility. Several do absolutely nothing to credit the soundness of his plan, but merely shoot down aspects of the TPC analysis. One would not be able to cite these for a college class, and yet Romney/Ryan can quote these in their support at free will. The 'blog postings' (what they actually are) cited are full of 'ifs'/'buts' around altering aspects of his actual plan. There are certainly methods to achieve revenue neutrality, but none of these analyses examine the Romney/Ryan plan in its current form. Its a shocking discovery, that should be on the cover of every newspaper and magazine in this country leading up to the debate. If they are going to continue citing it, and quoting it in defense of their plan--The American people have a right to know its true falsehood and inaccuracies. I only hope more public awareness will come about in the weeks that lead up to our election.
I think Evan hits the nail precisely on the head here; not only should we be criticizing Romney for the impossibility of his tax plan, we should also hold presidential candidates to higher standards than blog posts. Instead of spending millions on advertisements, maybe candidates should fund legitimate studies showing the actual predictable effects of their proposals. This article is simply another instance in which my faith in the viability of American Democracy as it is currently constituted is deeply shaken. Even when it is clear that a candidate is lying through his teeth, with a mountain of data to refute him, he can still win the debate. Perhaps Obama didn't fight back in the last debate because he had realized the old aphorism that one should not fight with an idiot because onlookers may be unable to tell the difference.
ReplyDelete