The problem with Romney's promises on the debt
(CBS News) Mitt Romney is claiming that, if he is elected, he will start to put out the "prairie fire of debt" sweeping the nation.
But his tax plan, in its current form, would instead feed the flames.
Romney is proposing to cut the top income tax rate from 35 percent to 28 percent and cut other tax rates by 20 percent, among other tax cuts. That would reduce revenue to the federal government and increase the debt and deficit, according to nonpartisan analysts.
Romney says he will offset this lost revenue in part by eliminating deductions and loopholes in the current tax code. Yet he is decidedly mum on exactly which deductions and loopholes he will eliminate. An email to the Romney campaign asking if and when the candidate would fill in the details of his plan was not returned.
Romney has good reason to be vague: Explaining exactly what tax breaks he would eliminate means potentially angering the voters who would be affected. But his decision not to offers details leaves Americans with no choice but to consider the plan as it now stands. According to a March Tax Policy Center analysis, Romney's plan would add $900 billion to the deficit in 2015, when his proposed changes would go into full effect.
Romney claims that, under his leadership, "[w]e will stop borrowing unfathomable sums of money we can't even imagine, from foreign countries we'll never even visit." The Congressional Budget Office is projecting a $1.17 trillion budget deficit for the budget year that ends in September. If the deficit otherwise stays steady, Romney's tax plan in its current form, with its projected $900 billion in lost revenue, would push that to more than $2 trillion. His plan to increase defense spending would push it even higher -- one analysis found Romney's proposals would mean $2.1 trillion in additional military spending over a decade.
It appears, then, that if Romney wants to fulfill his promise to "stop borrowing unfathomable sums of money" while dramatically cutting taxes, he'll have to eliminate more than $2 trillion per year from the federal budget. (Even if the as-yet-unspecified offsets save $500 billion, he'd still have to eliminate more than $1.5 trillion.) The federal government spent $3.6 trillion in fiscal year 2011, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.
Twenty percent of the 2011 budget, or $718 billion, went to defense spending, a figure that Romney says he wants increased. Romney's proposal, with its reduction in tax receipts, would thus leave less than $1 trillion (or $1.5 trillion with the offsets) for everything else. To get there would mean drastic cuts to Social Security, Medicare, education and infrastructure programs, benefits for veterans, medical research, the FBI and border control, safety net programs that keep millions out of poverty and other federal spending. Romney does say his tax plan will gave the economy a boost, which would mean there is more overall economic output subject to taxation. But even if the boost goes beyond economists most optimistic projections, severe cuts would still be needed.
Romney has proposed immediately cutting non-security discretionary spending by five percent upon taking office, which falls far short of the cuts needed to balance the budget. He has offered broad plans to reform entitlement programs and "streamline" government, but details are vague, and the proposals do not seem to approach the massive spending cuts that would be necessary to eliminate the deficit.
Romney has also endorsed the House GOP budget plan, also known as the Paul Ryan plan. That plan, which proponents say would cut spending by $5.3 trillion over a decade in part by replacing Medicare with a subsidy for seniors to buy health insurance, would also fall short.
Romney's campaign would surely quibble with some of the specifics of this analysis, and when you're considering complex budgetary figures and projections, there is room for discussion. But the overall picture is difficult to dispute: If Romney is going to fully put out the "prairie fire" of debt in conjunction with his current proposal to cut taxes, he'll have to preside over the sorts of cuts to federal spending that would dramatically reshape American life. And if he pushes through those tax cuts without huge offsetting cuts to federal spending, then the "prairie fire" is going to keep on burning.
Popular in Politics
- Obama forgets to salute while boarding Marine One Play Video
- IRS' Lerner was asked to resign, refused: GOP Sen. 183 Comments
- Obama prom pictures surface 131 Comments
- GOP Rep.: Obama elected because of Reagan's immigration reforms
- Petraeus biographer regrets affair
- Pelosi ties bridge collapse to sequester
- Is President Obama ending the war on terror? 290 Comments
- Palin Image: Confident, Secure Play Video
"But his tax plan, in its current form, would instead feed the flames."
Obviously, willard's plan for even more tax cuts without detailing the elimination of any deductions and loopholes in the current tax code by our dysfunctional Congress, would only fuel even greater budget deficits in the future. Of course his ridiculous republican tax plan would "feed the flames" of even more debt!
Technically speaking, the country ran on Bush 43's budget and economic policies until September 30, 2009. The national debt on that day: $11.9 trillion. Unemployment on that day: 9.8%. So contrary to the lies Republicans are spewing, the debt is only up about $3 trillion vs. the $5 trillion they're claiming, and unemployment only went up about half a percent before falling back to its current level. Is it enough? Of course not, but it's far better than where we were under "W".
America has been screwed up and on the wrong side of morality and law for a long, long time.
The Republicons don't even TRY to hide their intentions. How stupid are the people who support these terrible greedy people.
Romney says he will offset this lost revenue.....
=====
chevyhotrod: "I like to post facts"
=====
Then chevette, why not at least admit that your hero romney is agreeing with the non-partisan Tax Policy Center, and that further tax cuts will reduce revenue even further if not offset by closing tax deductions or tax loopholes?
Even so, more tax cuts offset by closing deductions and loopholes only brings us back to a neutral spot, that will not reduce our current budget deficits since 2000.
Yes, without a doubt only the true morons cannot see:
"It is logically impossible to reduce that debt by further reductions in revenue."
See chevette -- at least willard romney is able to acknowledge the fact that his tax cuts will REDUCE REVENUE, but is then unable to say exactly which "deductions and loopholes he will eliminate."
It's just a nice republican talking point to tell voters he will further reduce taxes which will further reduce federal revenue, like we've seen since the Clinton surpluses, but why aren't you republicans holding his feet to the fire to say EXACTLY which deductions and loopholes he will have Congress eliminate?
In order to pay for those new tax cuts, there will have to be almost $1 trillion in eliminated tax deductions and loopholes, and that's just to break even with the high budget deficits from the bush tax cuts!
Who is going to pay for the damage of President Obama?
Who voted for the balanced budget amendment this past year and who voted against it?
President Obama has increased federal spending 35% since taking office, all the while promising to spend less.
President Obama and the Democrat majorities in the Senate and House could have cut the spending when they were in power, but they increase federal spending and when the opposite direction.
If President Obama and the Democrats want to cut spending, I am sure the GOP would work with them, but no, he wants to increase spending and increase taxes.
President Obama debt and deficits are more in 3 years and 2 months than what President Bush did in 8 years...simple fact
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57400369-503544/national-debt-has-increased-more-under-obama-than-under-bush/?tag=re1.channel
NEW RECORD....Congradulations.
---------------------------
Posting faulty data and listing a link to it is very disingenuous to say the least.
The debt increased from $11.9 trillion at the end of the Bush budget-effect, to $15.6 trillion now. That is an increase of $3.7 trillion. $2 trillion of that directly from interest on the republican accumulated debt. Leaving $1.7 trillion accountable to Obama's administration.
Much of that $1.7 trillion spending is responsible for the prevention of an almost certain 2nd great depression. Anyone can Google this information, or I can post the actual yearly charts showing the ANNUAL increase in the national debt as well as the annual expenditures for interest on that debt.
During the Bush/Cheney years the republicans were famous for saying "THE DEBT DON'T MATTER" yet the interest on the debt, $8.463 trillion as of today, now accounts for more than half the actual $15.7 national debt
The republican party's trickle down policy of cutting taxes while increasing spending and deregulating businesses increased the national debt from less than $1 trillion, starting with the Reagan administration in 1981, to $11.9 trillion by the end of President Bush Jr.'s term (almost all of which is directly attributable to republican administrations), costing in excess of $8 trillion in interest alone. $.5 trillion interest costs are added to the debt each year ($2 trillion of the debt increase during this administration).
Same place there is a 0% corporate tax rate or better yet -- an IRS rebate to most of the multi-national corporations today that NEVER pay their 35% corporate tax rate!
We have a SEVERE REVENUE PROBLEM, and you fox/rush parrots will NEVER understand basic economics, and how republican tax cuts have lowered our federal revenue well-below the 18.5% of GDP since 2000, and only grown our budget deficits ever since!