Romney on federal debt: Don't expect "huge" tax cuts
Golf legend Jack Nicklaus, right, welcomes Republican presidential candidate, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney to the stage during a campaign rally, Wednesday, Sept. 26, 2012, in Westerville, Ohio.
/ AP Photo/Jay LaPrete"That clock up there shows our national debt," Romney said at a campaign rally, pointing to a debt clock set up by his campaign in a high school gymnasium in this Columbus suburb. "When I began this campaign it started with 15 trillion. ... Now there's over $16 trillion in debt. If (Obama) were reelected, I can assure you, it will be almost $20 trillion in debt."
Recent polls show that while Romney trails the president on issues including taxes, international affairs, and the handling of entitlement programs, the one area where he continues to have an edge is on addressing budget deficits and the national debt. Romney seized on the topic Wednesday, calling the current debt "an unthinkable amount" and arguing that the Federal Reserve has compounded the problem by keeping interest rates low.
"What's going to happen when those interest rates go up?" he asked a crowd 1,000 that gathered at the first of three stops in Ohio Wednesday. "That bill's going to get bigger and bigger. It is crushing. That's the course this president has put us on."
As president, he said he would get the country on track toward a balanced budget with spending cuts and caps. But Romney's proposal to simultaneously lower tax rates across-the-board have caused some to question whether he can balance the budget without getting rid of tax deductions that largely impact the middle class, including the home mortgage deduction and employer-provided health care deduction.
In explaining his tax plan today, Romney told the crowd he would simplify the tax code, but that they should not expect large tax cuts.
"Our individual income taxes are ones I want to reform, make them simpler. I want to bring the rates down," he said. "By the way, don't be expecting a huge cut in taxes because I'm also going to lower deductions and exemptions. But by bringing rates down, we'll be able to let small businesses keep more of their money so they can hire more people."
In a statement sent to reporters following Romney's remarks, an Obama campaign spokesman pointed out that he had not specified which tax deductions would be limited and whether they would fall on the middle class.
"With 41 days left, Mitt Romney has limited time to level with the American people about his record and plans for America. As each day passes, he continues to fail to do that," Lis Smith said in the statement.
Appearing with Romney in Westerville, was Ohio native and golf legend Jack Nicklaus, who endorsed the Republican nominee while tying his own success on the links to a philosophy embraced by conservatives.
"When I was competing, I didn't lean on someone else in tough times," Nicklaus said. "I know what I had to do on the golf course to succeed, and when I won, I certainly didn't apologize for my success."
Romney, who has chided the president for spending too much time golfing, called Nicklaus the "greatest athlete of the 20th century."
Popular in Politics
- Romney condemns "breach of trust" in Washington 222 Comments
- Adviser on White House scandals: "Partisan fishing expeditions" won't distract Obama 55 Comments
- Officials on Benghazi: "We made mistakes, but without malice"
- Where is the Benghazi cover-up Republicans promised? 422 Comments
- IRS targeting overlooked biggest soft money groups 71 Comments
- For GOP, scandals could be an electoral plus - or minus
- Republicans use IRS scandal to tar Obamacare 48 Comments
- Poll: George W. Bush's approval rating matches Obama's














1. He is for the Middle Class.
.....Hidden video: "..."Forty-seven per cent of Americans pay no income tax," Romney said. "...My job is not to worry about those people.
2. He does NOT propose a $5 Trillion Tax Cut.
.....Non Partisan Analysis shows $5 Trillion reduction in tax Revenues.
3. He is NOT going to cut education.
.....Previous: Pell Grants are NOT sustainable.
4. Pre-Existing Conditions are covered in his plan.
.....Actually: They are NOT.
5. Half of the Stimulus Funded Green Jobs have gone out of business.
.....Actually less than 1% has gone out of business.
The beauty of Robbed Me Ryan is that they are destroying further the already failed brand of Republican. After their absolute failure and devastation of America over the last 12 years, there should be no one with the Republicon ideology in any position of power. Not in city, state, local or federal government. Or in corporate position of power, they cannot handle it rationally.
Republicons have no respect for government and no respect for Americans. They have recently shown by choosing Robbed Me Ryan that they have no common sense, no compassion and no vision for our common future.
Marc Benioff, billionaire CEO of tech giant Salesforce.com, has been fighting for Obama since the second the president kicked off his 2012 re-election bid. In April 2011, he hosted a fundraising dinner at his San Francisco home. Guests paid up to $35,800 per plate, $5000 of which went directly to Obama's campaign and the rest to the Democratic National Committee. To date, the web entrepreneur — worth $2 billion per Forbes' most recent estimate - has raised over $500,000 from his network of friends, acquaintances and colleagues. Benioff, his wife Lynne and his mother Joelle have each given the maximum two $2,500 donations to Obama's campaign this cycle.
- New York hedge fund billionaire Marc Lasry has also helped bring in big checks for Obama. He and some fellow Wall Street heavy hitters hosted a $35,800-a-plate dinner for the president's re-election last summer at one of the city's priciest restaurants, Daniel. The Avenue Capital Management honcho, worth $1.3 billion per Forbes' most recent rich list, has raised between $200,000 and $500,000 for Obama to date. Like Benioff, Lasry has also given the maximum two $2,500 donations to the president's campaign himself.
- Hotel scion Penny Pritzker is a longtime political donor and the national finance chair for Obama's 2008 presidential run. The Hyatt billionaire and PSP Capital Partners chair co-hosted a September dinner and reception for the president's re-election in Chicago, with the standard $35,800-per-plate price tag in line with campaign limits. Pritzker and her fellow hosts brought out the big guns: special guest Warren Buffett, himself a lifelong Democrat and Obama supporter. So far this campaign, Pritzker has "bundled" between $100,000 and $200,000 from her wealthy network.
... billionaire scion James Crown, part of a family of investors worth, between them, $4.9 billion per Forbes'...............
San Francisco hedge fund billionaire Tom Steyer is no stranger to politics, as my colleague Kerry Dolan reported in September. He threw in a $5 million donation—the single largest sum donated— to fight Proposition 23, a 2010 California ballot that would have quashed a law to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. He drove around the state campaigning and worked the phones to get donations from the likes of Bill Gates ($700,000) and billionaire hedge fund manager Julian Robertson ($500,000). His efforts paid off: The proposition was soundly defeated. Now, he's backing Obama's re-election bid, and has raised between $50,000 and $100,000 towards the cause to date. Like his fellow billionaire bundlers, he's given the maximum person bid to the 2012 campaign: $5,000 in two gifts.
As well as the Forbes 400 rich list members fundraising for Obama, the president is relying on a small handful of well-connected Hollywood and New York players including Oscar-winning producer Harvey Weinstein, Vogue editor and Forbes Power Woman Anna Wintour and Dreamworks honcho Jeffrey Katzenberg. Between the three, they've collected at least $1.5 million from their super-rich networks, with months left to go in the 2012 campaign.
Bill Maher and Morgan Freeman wrote Obam a million dollar check each! George Clooney raised $15 million at one party! Beyonce and Jay Z? Oprah?....
I don't expect ANY tax cut. I expect that taxes will increase for just about everyone at my level one way or another....I don't care whatthe nominal rate is.
The reason why is because tax increases AND expediture cuts are both needed to address long term solvency issues. We have been living on a debt financed supply side equation for 30+ years. We have fought unfunded wars for a decade. Medicare needs shoring up by cost reductions, means testing, oultay reductions, and/ortax increases.
That's the simple fact. Those with more "free speech" will try to influence their portion of this to be less, so I know who will bear the burden.
Agreed, but with one point to add...
the crash of 2008 was in large part an aftershock of the Fannie and Freddie debacle, which was due to government forcing banks to engage in risky lending practices, which led to taxpayer bail outs and housing bust.
--------------------------------------------------
No, Shelly. The private banks developed no doc, sub-prime ARMs and credit default swaps all by themselves without any input from the federal government. The banks sold sub-prime mortgages to Fannie and Freddie while representing them as prime mortgages. The mortgages the banks sold to Fannie and Freddie did not meet the underwriting standard demanded by Fannie and Freddie. That is why Fannie and Freddie are suing the banks for billions of dollars in loses due to the banks fraud.
The story that the government "forced" the banks to do anything was started by lobbyists for the banks when the whole thing crashed in 2008. They wanted to divert attention from their fraud.
Virtually all the big banks committed fraud when they passed off bad mortgages as good loans. Goldman Sachs has already paid a $550 million fine for the fraud they committed in the Abacus II deal. The Fannie Mae suit will result in the banks paying billions. Perhaps the government can get more money back from the banks.
You really think that Fannie and Freddie had no idea that they were buying subprime loans? I'm not sure I buy that, still researching though. The reason is that the CRA Act passed by Congress under Clinton in 1995 to encourage low-income homeownership, and the low interest rates seemed too good for Fannie and Freddie to pass up.
I agree it would be good to see some of the taxpayers money back.
Fannie and Freddie execs are on trial too.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
only Huge capital gains tax eliminations for HIM...