Fuck its silent in here.......

[morpheus]

Some follow up on Paul Ryan's "6 studies." Shit don't add up.

Romney's tax plan is a three-legged stool that doesn't stand. Here's how it works -- or doesn't. Romney wants to 1) cut tax rates across the board by 20 percent, 2) cut tax expenditures to pay for these tax cuts, and 3) maintain progressivity. The problem, as the Tax Policy Center pointed out, is there aren't enough tax expenditures for the rich to pay for all the tax cuts for the rich. Romney's plan only works if he cuts out the tax cuts for the rich, raises taxes on the middle class, or explodes the deficit. In other words, Romney can pick two, and only two, of his tax goals -- what Matt Yglesias of Slate calls the "Romney Trilemma".

That sound you hear is the three-legged stool falling down.

All this hasn't stopped a fight against the tyranny of arithmetic. The defenses of the Romney tax  plan generally fall into three broad categories. The first assumes the plan will set off magic growth of the monster variety; the second assumes Romney defines "middle-class" differently than he does; and the third assumes Romney would eliminate tax expenditures he has indicated he would not eliminate.

There are only meaningful "alternatives" to discuss with Congress if Romney can pick and choose from a pool of tax preferences for the wealthy that far exceeds the $250 billion annual cost of his rate cuts for them. If the pool of available base broadeners is just large enough to finance his tax cuts, then Romney actually is dictating a plan to Congress: if they don't eliminate exactly the set of preferences he proposes, his plan will either have to raise taxes on the middle class or grow the deficit.

TPC finds that Romney's rate cuts, plus elimination of the estate tax and Alternative Minimum Tax, would cost the Treasury about $250 billion in revenue from high earners. If he could somehow find, say, $300 billion in base broadeners from the wealthy, $15 billion of which would have to go to a phaseout, that wouldn't leave a lot of "alternatives" on the table. Yet there aren't enough base broadeners for Romney to reach the $300 billion level, let alone exceed it.

The guy who wrote the study for the TPC says otherwise.

Sorry for the HuffPo link.

[R-V]

Some follow up on Paul Ryan's "6 studies." Shit don't add up.

Romney's tax plan is a three-legged stool that doesn't stand. Here's how it works -- or doesn't. Romney wants to 1) cut tax rates across the board by 20 percent, 2) cut tax expenditures to pay for these tax cuts, and 3) maintain progressivity. The problem, as the Tax Policy Center pointed out, is there aren't enough tax expenditures for the rich to pay for all the tax cuts for the rich. Romney's plan only works if he cuts out the tax cuts for the rich, raises taxes on the middle class, or explodes the deficit. In other words, Romney can pick two, and only two, of his tax goals -- what Matt Yglesias of Slate calls the "Romney Trilemma".

That sound you hear is the three-legged stool falling down.

All this hasn't stopped a fight against the tyranny of arithmetic. The defenses of the Romney tax  plan generally fall into three broad categories. The first assumes the plan will set off magic growth of the monster variety; the second assumes Romney defines "middle-class" differently than he does; and the third assumes Romney would eliminate tax expenditures he has indicated he would not eliminate.

There are only meaningful "alternatives" to discuss with Congress if Romney can pick and choose from a pool of tax preferences for the wealthy that far exceeds the $250 billion annual cost of his rate cuts for them. If the pool of available base broadeners is just large enough to finance his tax cuts, then Romney actually is dictating a plan to Congress: if they don't eliminate exactly the set of preferences he proposes, his plan will either have to raise taxes on the middle class or grow the deficit.

TPC finds that Romney's rate cuts, plus elimination of the estate tax and Alternative Minimum Tax, would cost the Treasury about $250 billion in revenue from high earners. If he could somehow find, say, $300 billion in base broadeners from the wealthy, $15 billion of which would have to go to a phaseout, that wouldn't leave a lot of "alternatives" on the table. Yet there aren't enough base broadeners for Romney to reach the $300 billion level, let alone exceed it.

The guy who wrote the study for the TPC says otherwise.

Sorry for the HuffPo link.

Rosen didn't write the TPC study. Read the Atlantic link - Rosen wrote the 1st of the 6 papers Ryan cited last night.

[morpheus]

Some follow up on Paul Ryan's "6 studies." Shit don't add up.

Romney's tax plan is a three-legged stool that doesn't stand. Here's how it works -- or doesn't. Romney wants to 1) cut tax rates across the board by 20 percent, 2) cut tax expenditures to pay for these tax cuts, and 3) maintain progressivity. The problem, as the Tax Policy Center pointed out, is there aren't enough tax expenditures for the rich to pay for all the tax cuts for the rich. Romney's plan only works if he cuts out the tax cuts for the rich, raises taxes on the middle class, or explodes the deficit. In other words, Romney can pick two, and only two, of his tax goals -- what Matt Yglesias of Slate calls the "Romney Trilemma".

That sound you hear is the three-legged stool falling down.

All this hasn't stopped a fight against the tyranny of arithmetic. The defenses of the Romney tax  plan generally fall into three broad categories. The first assumes the plan will set off magic growth of the monster variety; the second assumes Romney defines "middle-class" differently than he does; and the third assumes Romney would eliminate tax expenditures he has indicated he would not eliminate.

There are only meaningful "alternatives" to discuss with Congress if Romney can pick and choose from a pool of tax preferences for the wealthy that far exceeds the $250 billion annual cost of his rate cuts for them. If the pool of available base broadeners is just large enough to finance his tax cuts, then Romney actually is dictating a plan to Congress: if they don't eliminate exactly the set of preferences he proposes, his plan will either have to raise taxes on the middle class or grow the deficit.

TPC finds that Romney's rate cuts, plus elimination of the estate tax and Alternative Minimum Tax, would cost the Treasury about $250 billion in revenue from high earners. If he could somehow find, say, $300 billion in base broadeners from the wealthy, $15 billion of which would have to go to a phaseout, that wouldn't leave a lot of "alternatives" on the table. Yet there aren't enough base broadeners for Romney to reach the $300 billion level, let alone exceed it.

The guy who wrote the study for the TPC says otherwise.

Sorry for the HuffPo link.

Rosen didn't write the TPC study. Read the Atlantic link - Rosen wrote the 1st of the 6 papers Ryan cited last night.

I misspoke about Rosen's role in this... but Rosen is right, of course.

To quote from Rosen's paper:

the recent debate has been more occupied with the arcana of tax preferences and how they are allocated across income classes than with the impact of economic growth. To be sure, the extent to which a program of tax reform (and regulatory reform) would actually increase growth is controversial. But that doesn't mean it should be ignored; rather, it should be debated. Economic growth should take center stage in the ongoing national conversation over tax policy.

The Atlantic also quotes from Alex Brill - in a year-old analysis of an outdated version of the plan.  Brilll's more recent writings don't seem very sympathetic to the TPC version of the world.

I especially like this quote, because it is a great example of what's happening in this thread and in places like the Atlantic.

Sadly, no true debate over the merits or means of tax reform is happening. Democrats have refused to engage in a discussion of ideas and have instead pursued a negative strategy, spending millions saying that Romney's objectives are impossible to achieve and meanwhile offering no alternative.

Bottom line: The shit adds up better than the $1.5T deficits as far as the eye can see under the current regime.

[R-V]

I misspoke about Rosen's role in this... but Rosen is right, of course.

To quote from Rosen's paper:

the recent debate has been more occupied with the arcana of tax preferences and how they are allocated across income classes than with the impact of economic growth. To be sure, the extent to which a program of tax reform (and regulatory reform) would actually increase growth is controversial. But that doesn't mean it should be ignored; rather, it should be debated. Economic growth should take center stage in the ongoing national conversation over tax policy.

The Atlantic also quotes from Alex Brill - in a year-old analysis of an outdated version of the plan.  Brilll's more recent writings don't seem very sympathetic to the TPC version of the world.

I especially like this quote, because it is a great example of what's happening in this thread and in places like the Atlantic.

Sadly, no true debate over the merits or means of tax reform is happening. Democrats have refused to engage in a discussion of ideas and have instead pursued a negative strategy, spending millions saying that Romney's objectives are impossible to achieve and meanwhile offering no alternative.

Bottom line: The shit adds up better than the $1.5T deficits as far as the eye can see under the current regime.

So you think it's plausible these tax cuts would generate enough growth to make up the $86 billion a year gap mentioned in the Bloomberg piece? You think we're on that same right side of the Laffer curve we were on before the Kennedy tax cut? I'm all for debating the growth effects of difference tax cuts but the growth claims need to at least pass the smell test.

I'm not opposed at all to base broadening and reducing tax expenditures. But to claim that you can cut rates 20% across the board AND leave middle/lower class tax expenditures untouched WITHOUT adding to the deficit is not a bold plan. It's a pipe dream.

[R-V]

I misspoke about Rosen's role in this... but Rosen is right, of course.

To quote from Rosen's paper:

the recent debate has been more occupied with the arcana of tax preferences and how they are allocated across income classes than with the impact of economic growth. To be sure, the extent to which a program of tax reform (and regulatory reform) would actually increase growth is controversial. But that doesn't mean it should be ignored; rather, it should be debated. Economic growth should take center stage in the ongoing national conversation over tax policy.

The Atlantic also quotes from Alex Brill - in a year-old analysis of an outdated version of the plan.  Brilll's more recent writings don't seem very sympathetic to the TPC version of the world.

I especially like this quote, because it is a great example of what's happening in this thread and in places like the Atlantic.

Sadly, no true debate over the merits or means of tax reform is happening. Democrats have refused to engage in a discussion of ideas and have instead pursued a negative strategy, spending millions saying that Romney's objectives are impossible to achieve and meanwhile offering no alternative.

Bottom line: The shit adds up better than the $1.5T deficits as far as the eye can see under the current regime.

So you think it's plausible these tax cuts would generate enough growth to make up the $86 billion a year gap mentioned in the Bloomberg piece? You think we're on that same right side of the Laffer curve we were on before the Kennedy tax cut? I'm all for debating the growth effects of difference tax cuts but the growth claims need to at least pass the smell test.

I'm not opposed at all to base broadening and reducing tax expenditures. But to claim that you can cut rates 20% across the board AND leave middle/lower class tax expenditures untouched WITHOUT adding to the deficit is not a bold plan. It's a pipe dream.

DPD. Another note about the TPC analysis - they DID include growth assumptions in their paper. Growth assumptions based on work by...current Romney advisor Greg Mankiw. Even with those optimistic assumptions, that shit still doesn't add up. Do I agree with Obama's tax proposals? No. But that's not a good reason to just brush away questions about Romney's math.

[CT III]

I misspoke about Rosen's role in this... but Rosen is right, of course.

To quote from Rosen's paper:

the recent debate has been more occupied with the arcana of tax preferences and how they are allocated across income classes than with the impact of economic growth. To be sure, the extent to which a program of tax reform (and regulatory reform) would actually increase growth is controversial. But that doesn't mean it should be ignored; rather, it should be debated. Economic growth should take center stage in the ongoing national conversation over tax policy.

The Atlantic also quotes from Alex Brill - in a year-old analysis of an outdated version of the plan.  Brilll's more recent writings don't seem very sympathetic to the TPC version of the world.

I especially like this quote, because it is a great example of what's happening in this thread and in places like the Atlantic.

Sadly, no true debate over the merits or means of tax reform is happening. Democrats have refused to engage in a discussion of ideas and have instead pursued a negative strategy, spending millions saying that Romney's objectives are impossible to achieve and meanwhile offering no alternative.

Bottom line: The shit adds up better than the $1.5T deficits as far as the eye can see under the current regime.

So you think it's plausible these tax cuts would generate enough growth to make up the $86 billion a year gap mentioned in the Bloomberg piece? You think we're on that same right side of the Laffer curve we were on before the Kennedy tax cut? I'm all for debating the growth effects of difference tax cuts but the growth claims need to at least pass the smell test.

I'm not opposed at all to base broadening and reducing tax expenditures. But to claim that you can cut rates 20% across the board AND leave middle/lower class tax expenditures untouched WITHOUT adding to the deficit is not a bold plan. It's a pipe dream.

DPD. Another note about the TPC analysis - they DID include growth assumptions in their paper. Growth assumptions based on work by...current Romney advisor Greg Mankiw. Even with those optimistic assumptions, that shit still doesn't add up. Do I agree with Obama's tax proposals? No. But that's not a good reason to just brush away questions about Romney's math.

Whoa.  Who put the muscle in your afternoon frappuccino?

[R-V]

I misspoke about Rosen's role in this... but Rosen is right, of course.

To quote from Rosen's paper:

the recent debate has been more occupied with the arcana of tax preferences and how they are allocated across income classes than with the impact of economic growth. To be sure, the extent to which a program of tax reform (and regulatory reform) would actually increase growth is controversial. But that doesn't mean it should be ignored; rather, it should be debated. Economic growth should take center stage in the ongoing national conversation over tax policy.

The Atlantic also quotes from Alex Brill - in a year-old analysis of an outdated version of the plan.  Brilll's more recent writings don't seem very sympathetic to the TPC version of the world.

I especially like this quote, because it is a great example of what's happening in this thread and in places like the Atlantic.

Sadly, no true debate over the merits or means of tax reform is happening. Democrats have refused to engage in a discussion of ideas and have instead pursued a negative strategy, spending millions saying that Romney's objectives are impossible to achieve and meanwhile offering no alternative.

Bottom line: The shit adds up better than the $1.5T deficits as far as the eye can see under the current regime.

So you think it's plausible these tax cuts would generate enough growth to make up the $86 billion a year gap mentioned in the Bloomberg piece? You think we're on that same right side of the Laffer curve we were on before the Kennedy tax cut? I'm all for debating the growth effects of difference tax cuts but the growth claims need to at least pass the smell test.

I'm not opposed at all to base broadening and reducing tax expenditures. But to claim that you can cut rates 20% across the board AND leave middle/lower class tax expenditures untouched WITHOUT adding to the deficit is not a bold plan. It's a pipe dream.

DPD. Another note about the TPC analysis - they DID include growth assumptions in their paper. Growth assumptions based on work by...current Romney advisor Greg Mankiw. Even with those optimistic assumptions, that shit still doesn't add up. Do I agree with Obama's tax proposals? No. But that's not a good reason to just brush away questions about Romney's math.

Whoa.  Who put the muscle in your afternoon frappuccino?

Don't act like you don't get all hot and bothered when we talk about tax expenditures.

[Eli]

So Romney has lamely stolen the "clear eyes" phrase from Friday Night Lights and is using it on the campaign trail, his Facebook page, etc.



Similar to Tom Morello telling Paul Ryan he sucks and obviously doesn't understand Rage Against the Machine, the creator of Friday Night Lights is now telling Mitt to cease and desist.

In a letter sent to the Romney campaign [pdf], Berg says Romney's incorporation of Coach Taylor's immortal words into his rhetoric "falsely and inappropriately associates Friday Night Lights with the Romney/Ryan campaign."

He continues:

Your politics and campaign are clearly not aligned with the themes we portrayed in our series. The only relevant comparison that I see between your campaign and Friday Night Lights is in the character of Buddy Garrity - who turned his back on American car manufacturers selling imported cars from Japan.

Oh. Snap.

[morpheus]

I misspoke about Rosen's role in this... but Rosen is right, of course.

To quote from Rosen's paper:

the recent debate has been more occupied with the arcana of tax preferences and how they are allocated across income classes than with the impact of economic growth. To be sure, the extent to which a program of tax reform (and regulatory reform) would actually increase growth is controversial. But that doesn't mean it should be ignored; rather, it should be debated. Economic growth should take center stage in the ongoing national conversation over tax policy.

The Atlantic also quotes from Alex Brill - in a year-old analysis of an outdated version of the plan.  Brilll's more recent writings don't seem very sympathetic to the TPC version of the world.

I especially like this quote, because it is a great example of what's happening in this thread and in places like the Atlantic.

Sadly, no true debate over the merits or means of tax reform is happening. Democrats have refused to engage in a discussion of ideas and have instead pursued a negative strategy, spending millions saying that Romney's objectives are impossible to achieve and meanwhile offering no alternative.

Bottom line: The shit adds up better than the $1.5T deficits as far as the eye can see under the current regime.

So you think it's plausible these tax cuts would generate enough growth to make up the $86 billion a year gap mentioned in the Bloomberg piece? You think we're on that same right side of the Laffer curve we were on before the Kennedy tax cut? I'm all for debating the growth effects of difference tax cuts but the growth claims need to at least pass the smell test.

I'm not opposed at all to base broadening and reducing tax expenditures. But to claim that you can cut rates 20% across the board AND leave middle/lower class tax expenditures untouched WITHOUT adding to the deficit is not a bold plan. It's a pipe dream.

DPD. Another note about the TPC analysis - they DID include growth assumptions in their paper. Growth assumptions based on work by...current Romney advisor Greg Mankiw. Even with those optimistic assumptions, that shit still doesn't add up. Do I agree with Obama's tax proposals? No. But that's not a good reason to just brush away questions about Romney's math.

Look... the TPC study makes all sorts of guesses and assumptions that take them to their conclusion that "shit don't add up."  That $86B gap you mention, in fact, is based on their guesses; others have estimated the gap to be much lower.  Thus, using it as some sort of arguing point is pretty tenuous ground to stand on.

Do I think the Romney/Ryan plan is perfect?  No - some sort of consumption tax replacing the income tax would be far, far more economically efficient - but I think it's workable politically, unlike a consumption tax replacement.  And, I think the net effect to the economy as a whole would be far, far better than raising tax rates on those who make above $[whatever the Obama Administration says is 'rich'], given the already highly progressive and inefficient nature of our tax code.

[Eli]

Do I think the Romney/Ryan plan is perfect?  No - some sort of consumption tax replacing the income tax would be far, far more economically efficient - but I think it's workable politically, unlike a consumption tax replacement.  And, I think the net effect to the economy as a whole would be far, far better than raising tax rates on those who make above $[whatever the Obama Administration says is 'rich'], given the already highly progressive and inefficient nature of our tax code.

Honest question, and my apologies if it comes off as dickish (I don't intend it to): Does anything in politics motivate or interest you besides the economy?

[morpheus]

Do I think the Romney/Ryan plan is perfect?  No - some sort of consumption tax replacing the income tax would be far, far more economically efficient - but I think it's workable politically, unlike a consumption tax replacement.  And, I think the net effect to the economy as a whole would be far, far better than raising tax rates on those who make above $[whatever the Obama Administration says is 'rich'], given the already highly progressive and inefficient nature of our tax code.

Honest question, and my apologies if it comes off as dickish (I don't intend it to): Does anything in politics motivate or interest you besides the economy?

It's the area that I am most comfortable with, to be sure.  That's probably related to my career and educational background, of course.

In the current environment I think it's probably *the* most important issue, because a weak economy makes it difficult if not impossible to address other issues, and the economy is where I think the Federal government is doing the most damage right now.

[J. Walter Weatherman]

Do I think the Romney/Ryan plan is perfect?  No - some sort of consumption tax replacing the income tax would be far, far more economically efficient - but I think it's workable politically, unlike a consumption tax replacement.  And, I think the net effect to the economy as a whole would be far, far better than raising tax rates on those who make above $[whatever the Obama Administration says is 'rich'], given the already highly progressive and inefficient nature of our tax code.

Honest question, and my apologies if it comes off as dickish (I don't intend it to): Does anything in politics motivate or interest you besides the economy?

Well, the economy and the unstoppable homo virus the godless Commies are infecting our beautiful white babies with.

But the latter mostly goes without saying.

[R-V]

I misspoke about Rosen's role in this... but Rosen is right, of course.

To quote from Rosen's paper:

the recent debate has been more occupied with the arcana of tax preferences and how they are allocated across income classes than with the impact of economic growth. To be sure, the extent to which a program of tax reform (and regulatory reform) would actually increase growth is controversial. But that doesn't mean it should be ignored; rather, it should be debated. Economic growth should take center stage in the ongoing national conversation over tax policy.

The Atlantic also quotes from Alex Brill - in a year-old analysis of an outdated version of the plan.  Brilll's more recent writings don't seem very sympathetic to the TPC version of the world.

I especially like this quote, because it is a great example of what's happening in this thread and in places like the Atlantic.

Sadly, no true debate over the merits or means of tax reform is happening. Democrats have refused to engage in a discussion of ideas and have instead pursued a negative strategy, spending millions saying that Romney's objectives are impossible to achieve and meanwhile offering no alternative.

Bottom line: The shit adds up better than the $1.5T deficits as far as the eye can see under the current regime.

So you think it's plausible these tax cuts would generate enough growth to make up the $86 billion a year gap mentioned in the Bloomberg piece? You think we're on that same right side of the Laffer curve we were on before the Kennedy tax cut? I'm all for debating the growth effects of difference tax cuts but the growth claims need to at least pass the smell test.

I'm not opposed at all to base broadening and reducing tax expenditures. But to claim that you can cut rates 20% across the board AND leave middle/lower class tax expenditures untouched WITHOUT adding to the deficit is not a bold plan. It's a pipe dream.

DPD. Another note about the TPC analysis - they DID include growth assumptions in their paper. Growth assumptions based on work by...current Romney advisor Greg Mankiw. Even with those optimistic assumptions, that shit still doesn't add up. Do I agree with Obama's tax proposals? No. But that's not a good reason to just brush away questions about Romney's math.

Look... the TPC study makes all sorts of guesses and assumptions that take them to their conclusion that "shit don't add up."  That $86B gap you mention, in fact, is based on their guesses; others have estimated the gap to be much lower.  Thus, using it as some sort of arguing point is pretty tenuous ground to stand on.

Do I think the Romney/Ryan plan is perfect?  No - some sort of consumption tax replacing the income tax would be far, far more economically efficient - but I think it's workable politically, unlike a consumption tax replacement.  And, I think the net effect to the economy as a whole would be far, far better than raising tax rates on those who make above $[whatever the Obama Administration says is 'rich'], given the already highly progressive and inefficient nature of our tax code.

Here's my problem. You have an issue with "$1.5 T deficits as far as the eye can see." Romney's got a tax plan  that, depending on which analysis you look at (the one from the bipartisan TPC, or one plucked from the WSJ editorial page), will either add a whole shit ton to the deficit, or maybe just a bit to the deficit. But either way, on it's own as a policy, it's not going to do anything to decrease the deficit. Which tells me that tax cuts take priority over deficit reduction at a time when federal taxes as a share of GDP are the lowest they've been in about 60 years. Which does not compute.

[CBStew]

Do I think the Romney/Ryan plan is perfect?  No - some sort of consumption tax replacing the income tax would be far, far more economically efficient - but I think it's workable politically, unlike a consumption tax replacement.  And, I think the net effect to the economy as a whole would be far, far better than raising tax rates on those who make above $[whatever the Obama Administration says is 'rich'], given the already highly progressive and inefficient nature of our tax code.

"Consumption tax".  Is that the same as a sales tax?  If not, how does it differ?  If it is the same or similar, is that an answer for what you call a "highly progressive" tax code?  My office is about a block from a marina, where a yacht sale is going on.  Rounding up a little, the sales tax around here is about 9%.  That means more real dollars go to taxes than for the sale of a can of tennis balls.  Does a "consumption tax" take into account that the item being purchased is a yacht, and not a can of tennis balls?  Is there a way of making rich people (however the government decides how to define who is rich) pay more to buy a can of  tennis balls, since both rich people and not so rich people buy tennis balls?

[Wheezer]

So Romney has lamely stolen the "clear eyes" phrase from Friday Night Lights and is using it on the campaign trail, his Facebook page, etc.

That apostrophe by itself is damning cause for termination. Aside from its general hideousness, compare it with the other punctuation. I've also got a pound of potatoes that says those lc ells aren't supposed to be riding on the baseline.

Amateurs. The "kerning" also utterly blows for titling copy.