“Is This All You Got?”: Eric Cantor’s “Big Speech” Filled With Small, Greasy Nuggets Of Policy
The latest of the many Big Speeches delivered by Republicans aimed at changing the party’s image without changing its ideology was delivered today by House Majority Leader Eric Cantor of VA in the friendly confines of the American Enterprise Institute. So important was this speech, it seems, that Republicans accused the president of trying to “step on it” via remarks at roughly the same time on how the administration proposed to avoid the pending March 1 appropriations sequester.
Cantor’s Big Speech was officially advertised as a “rebranding” of the GOP into a nice, positive, friendly band of pols who just want to help middle-class Americans improve their daily lives. And according to National Review‘s Robert Costa, what would make the speech especially interesting was that it would focus on policies, not just rhetoric.
Well, you can read Cantor’s prepared remarks yourself. It certainly does avoid the usual harsh War For Civilization rhetoric usually employed by House Republicans of late. It issues no ultimatums and threatens no revolutions. But after three eye-glazing readings, my main question was: Is this all you got, Eric? Nestled in an endless series of soft-focus rhetorical gestures and “real people” shout-outs, the speech was the policy equivalent of a side order of chicken nuggets: small, greasy, and not very nourishing.
By my rough count, you had to plow through twenty-seven (27) paragraphs before coming to anything that resembled an actual policy proposal. That turned out to be a laboriously explained yet not terribly clear endorsement of the “back-pack” K-12 education voucher–e.g., use of federal funds for non-accountable (except by the parents getting the money) use in private schools. Also on the education front was a ringing endorsement of better information for students entering higher education institutions, and maybe a tilt in student loan programs to create an incentive to graduate.
Readers reeling from all this policy boldness could move on to the same endorsement of “reform” in fragmented job training programs that people in both parties have been calling for ever since Dan Quayle was bragging about the Job Training Partnership Act. There was plea for the ancient conservative chestnut of letting hourly employees convert overtime pay to some sort of comp-time, without any clarity on the question of whether and on what terms employers could require it.
But wait: Cantor also came out for reducing loopholes in the tax system! And at the same time he endorsed the child tax credit that’s been in the code since the 1990s.
On the health care front, Cantor made the usual negative assertions about Obamacare, without a hint of any alternative GOP proposal for dealing with the uninsured. He offered the dazzlingly original argument that the states should be given more flexibility in administering Medicaid. And he seemed to be arguing for a return to some sort of Medicare Advantage program encouraging seniors to buy private health insurance.
And oh yeah, bravely taking the bull by the horns, Cantor waded into the immigration controversy by generally endorsing more visas for the highly qualified, and a path to citizenship for children brought into the country without documents–which are, of course, the least contentious issue in the entire debate.
I may have missed a morsel or two scattered amongst the anecdotes and bromides. But there couldn’t have been much. If Republicans are actually proud of this essay in policy minimalism–delivered at a think tank, no less!–then they are further away from any real reinvention of themselves than even hostile observers like me thought possible.
By: Ed Kilgore, Contributing Writer, Washington Monthly Political Animal, February 5, 2013
“A Holiday Wish List For Congress”: Work In The Spirit Of The Season And Help Get The Country Back On Track
For many of us who give gifts at this time of year, the rituals put in perspective the differences between what we can afford, what we need, and what we want. Considering the nation is more than $16 trillion in debt and facing the so-called fiscal cliff of automatic across-the-board spending cuts and tax hikes, lawmakers need to concentrate on doing just what is needed.
With that in mind, here’s my suggested holiday wish list for Congress:
For many of us who give gifts at this time of year, the rituals put in perspective the differences between what we can afford, what we need, and what we want. Considering the nation is more than $16 trillion in debt and facing the so-called fiscal cliff of automatic across-the-board spending cuts and tax hikes, lawmakers need to concentrate on doing just what is needed.
With that in mind, here’s my suggested holiday wish list for Congress:
1. Peace and harmony. We can’t afford for the ideological differences between the political parties to paralyze us. Make a short term deal to prevent us from going over the fiscal cliff and set up the 113th Congress to succeed where the 112th Congress fell short. Here’s a suggestion on how to do that.
2. Fund only the defense we need. Every year, the defense budget is full of weapons and programs someone in Congress wants but that the Pentagon doesn’t need or want. Leaders as diverse as former Secretaries of State Henry Kissinger, Madeline Albright, and James Baker, along with former Defense Secretary Robert Gates say we can spend less on national security. And working with others, we at Taxpayers for Common Sense have provided a set of suggestions on where to cut defense spending.
3. Be good shepherd. The Farm Bill is one of the best examples of programs some people want, but we don’t need right now. It is hard to argue that with farm country seeing record profits the last few years we need to continue to provide massive crop insurance subsidies and other subsidy programs for farmers. What we absolutely don’t need is to have a trillion dollar farm bill shoe-horned into the last days of the 112th Congress.
4. Listen to the wise men—and women. In the last two years, wise men and women from former Sen. Alan Simpson and Erskine Bowles to former Sen. Pete Domenici and Alice Rivlin have laid out plans for long term restructuring of our budget and reduction of our debt. It’s time to listen to those ideas and set the stage for solving our fiscal problems.
5. Gold, frankincense, and myrrh. The tax code is riddled with loopholes and breaks that total more than $1 trillion in forgone revenue every year. It’s time for lawmakers to give taxpayers the gift of flatter, simpler, and fairer tax code that eliminates most of the breaks and generates the revenue to fund the government we need.
We know that Congress will be back at work even as many of us are enjoying time off with our families and we hope that each and every one of them can work in the spirit of the season and help get the country on track for a brighter fiscal future. That’s what America needs.
By: Ryan Alexander, Washington Whispers, U. S. News and World Report, December 24, 2012
“Populist Mitt”: Does Romney Want to Raise Taxes On The Wealthy?
At last night’s debate, the mathematical impossibility of the Romney tax plan came up, just as it did during the first Obama-Romney debate, and just as it surely will in the second Obama-Romney debate on Tuesday. The real problem with Romney’s proposal, though, isn’t just that it’s mathematically impossible, but that it’s logically strange in one important way nobody seems to have noticed yet, namely that Romney seems to be proposing big tax increases for the wealthy. I’ll get to why that is in a minute, but before I do let’s review the problem. Since Kevin Drum gave a nice explanation, I’ll just steal it:
Romney has promised a 20 percent across-the-board rate cut, which includes people making over $200,000 per year. This would reduce tax revenues by about $251 billion per year.
But wait! What about the economic growth this will unleash? That’s mostly mythical, but let’s bend over backwards here. If you incorporate the growth estimate of one of Romney’s advisors, Greg Mankiw, Romney’s rate cuts would only cost about $215 billion per year.
Next, try to pick out a set of deductions and loopholes that can be closed to make up for this revenue loss.
But wait! Romney hasn’t said exactly which deductions he would target. So it’s not fair to pick and choose specific deductions. Fine. Instead, let’s assume that Romney completely eliminates every single deduction for high earners. All of them. It turns out this would make up $165 billion per year.
So even under the best possible assumptions, Romney’s plan would cut taxes on the rich by $50 billion per year.
But Romney says he won’t cut taxes on the rich.
If you want a lengthier explanation of all this, Josh Barro gives it here. To sum up: Romney’s now-emphatic promise that he won’t cut taxes for the wealthy (“I cannot reduce the burden paid by high-income Americans,” he said during his debate with Obama, “So any — any language to the contrary is simply not accurate”) is just impossible to keep if he’s actually going to also reduce their taxes by 20 percent. And that’s where we get to the crazy part. Here’s what I would ask Mitt Romney if I had the chance:
You say you want to cut income tax rates for everyone, and pay for every penny by eliminating rich people’s deductions and loopholes. So if you’re paying for it by getting more money from the rich, that means the rich’s taxes are going up. If rich people’s taxes were staying the same under your plan, we wouldn’t be getting the money to pay for the across-the board rate cut for everyone. You keep saying wealthy people won’t see a tax cut, but what you’re actually proposing is a tax increase on the wealthy. That being the case, why go through this double bank-shot of cutting the rich’s income tax rates, then going after their deductions? If what you’re proposing is to raise taxes on the rich, why not just raise taxes on the rich, say by raising their income tax rates?
I suppose if somebody asked Romney this, he’d deliver some convoluted explanation involving tax simplification (a reasonable goal in itself, but beside the point) and the explosion of growth that will come from a tax cut. But that wouldn’t make sense either—if all those “job creators” are getting their taxes increased, won’t that hamper their ability to do their divine job-creating work? Because as Republicans never tire of telling us, if you raise taxes on job creators, the economy inevitably goes down the toilet.
So how do we account for the logical conundrum of Mitt Romney’s tax plan? Someone would have to go back and check, but I’m guessing the whole thing evolved piecemeal, in a combination of actual proposals somebody sat down and worked out, and rhetorical moves Romney made in both planned and extemporaneous contexts. After proposing the 20 percent rate cut, at some point he started promising not to cut taxes for the wealthy because he didn’t want to seem like the plutocrat the Obama campaign is making him out to be, and that backed him into a corner he now can’t get out of. I haven’t seen anybody ask him about the fact that he’s actually proposing raising taxes on the rich, even though that’s what he’s doing. Maybe when someone does, he’ll embrace his new populist self.
By: Paul Waldman, Contributing Editor, The American Prospect, October 12, 2012
“Dealing With The Cavities”: The Romney-Ryan Tax Loophole Fantasy
One point I mentioned during the live blog of the debate last night which I think is worth reiterating (over and over again) regarding Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan’s refusal to give details on half of their tax plan—don’t be fooled by their refusal to fill out the details of their plan.
To recap: Romney has proposed a 20 percent across the board income tax cut, to cut corporate taxes, and repeal the Alternative Minimum Tax, among other things. He claims that he will make up the lost tax revenue by closing unspecified loopholes in the tax code. This is where the $5 trillion dispute comes from about Romney’s tax plan—his tax cuts are projected to cost around $5 trillion. He argues that it’s not fair to characterize his proposal as a $5 trillion tax cut because—you’ll have to take his word on this—he’s going to offset it by closing loopholes.
Why won’t he or Ryan name the loopholes they’d be willing to close in order to pay for their massive tax cut? Because in a giant act of bipartisan magnanimousness they want to work with Congress to decide which loopholes to close. There are two things going on here.
One is that this is the political equivalent of Romney and Ryan doling out heaps of candy to the public but then saying they’ll work with the Congress to determine precisely which teeth will have to be drilled to deal with the resulting cavities. They’re willing to give out very specific goodies, in other words, and then pretend they’re being brave bipartisans by letting Congress work out the painful details of paying for them. That’s neither brave nor bipartisan.
As TNR’s Noam Scheiber noted last night on Twitter:
Why would you be specific about lowering rates 20 percent but not offsets. Wouldn’t the first part make bipartisan compromise harder too?
If they’re so intent on working with Congress, why put a specific number on one side of the tax reform equation but not the other? Why not say the goal is to lower rates by however much eliminating deductions allows but that they’ll leave the details up to Congress? The reason goes back to the origin of Romney’s tax plan in February when he was trying to win the Republican nomination. Attempting to seem bold and Reaganesque, he proposed the 20 percent across-the-board tax cut. His emphasis then was on rate cuts, including for the rich. He wanted the big bold number. Now he has to backfill the details, which bring me to the other thing going on here.
Romney’s math doesn’t work. Tax loopholes have become the modern equivalent of wasteful spending–a generic and vastly overestimated pool of money politicians can cite as offsets for their expensive policies. The Congress’s nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation found that if you repealed all itemized deductions from the tax code (as in goodbye mortgage interest deduction), it would only pay for a 4 percent cut in tax rates.
And more specifically to Romney’s plan, the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center (whose findings the Romney campaign used to tout), has run the numbers and figured out that the wealthy don’t currently get enough breaks in the tax code to pay for the Romney tax cuts. In order to pay for the cuts middle class taxpayers would have to lose expenditures—more than offsetting the tax breaks they would see.
And while Romney and Ryan have talked about a half-dozen independent “studies” which defend his tax plan, they are actually not studies at all—rather they’re three blog posts, an op-ed, and a couple of white papers, one of which was written by Romney’s own economic advisers. Oh, and they don’t actually back up his plan, according to The Atlantic’s Matthew O’Brien.
So understand that while Romney’s goal sounds good, it’s straight out of campaign fantasy land.
By: Robert Schlesinger, U. S. News and World Report, October 12, 2012
Giving Specifics Would “Take Me Too Long”: Paul Ryan Is Not In The Mood For Truth Telling
On Fox News Sunday, Rep. Paul Ryan claimed that Americans don’t know enough about what a Romney-Ryan presidency would do, which explains the campaign’s current troubles. But when Chris Wallace pressed Ryan to discuss the specifics of the Romney-Ryan tax plan, the mathematics of which have confounded non-partisan experts, he refused even to say how much the tax cuts the ticket has proposed would cost.
Everyone expects Mitt Romney to bob and weave around basic questions he doesn’t want to answer. But Ryan makes such a show about telling hard truths. Turns out Ryan’s self-righteousness has mainly served to make it more insulting when he bobs and weaves himself.
“It would take me too long to go through all of the math,” Ryan explained Sunday morning. But Wallace wasn’t asking for “all” of the math, just basic numbers. As usual with the GOP ticket, the only specific figure Ryan wanted to discuss was how much he and Romney want to drop tax rates. Wallace repeatedly asked Ryan whether Romney’s proposed tax cuts would cost $5 trillion, a question meant to establish one side of the budget equation before moving to a discussion of how Romney would pay for the cuts. But Ryan repeatedly refused to go through the addition and subtraction, instead insisting that the numbers eventually come out in his favor — Romney’s proposed tax cuts would cost nothing, he said, because Romney would offset them by cutting loopholes, primarily for upper incomes.
But which loopholes, and where does Romney draw the line between middle- and upper-income Americans? Ryan had nothing too specific there, either. The best he could do was repeat the nice-sounding logic of the Romney-Ryan plan:
You can lower tax rates 20 percent across the board by closing loopholes and still have preferences for the middle class for things like charitable deductions, home purchases, for health care. What we’re saying is people are going to get lower tax rates and therefore they will not send as much money to Washington.
Wallace went on to ask Ryan what Romney’s highest priority would be if the GOP ticket’s tax plan didn’t turn out to be revenue-neutral. Ryan answered that “keeping tax rates down” is “more important than anything.” Since Ryan kept insisting that he and Romney need not make a choice between tax cuts and, say, controlling the deficit, he probably didn’t mean for his statement to sound ominous. But since he merely said — and did not show — that Romney’s math could add up, ominous his statement was.
Wallace should have followed up with a question about how, even if Romney and Ryan managed to cut taxes and kept federal revenue where it is, they could then plausibly fix America’s long-term budget mess without additional money. Then again, Ryan didn’t seem to be in the mood for any hard truth-telling.
By: Steven Stromberg, The Washington Post, September 30, 2012
Share This Blog
Unknown Feed- An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.
mykeystrokes.com 