WaPo editorial: Romney’s ruinous tax plan

October 4, 2012

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

It appears that not all media villagers were so easily impressed by the ease with which Willard "Mittens" Romney so shamelessly lied during last night's debate. The Washington Post has this editorial opinion today, Romney’s ruinous tax plan:

HERE IS ONE way to distill the confusing charges and countercharges of the first presidential debate:

President Obama has no adequate plan to cope with the frightening level of debt the U.S. government is accumulating.

Republican nominee Mitt Romney has a plan to make it worse.

To understand that harsh assessment, you have to spend a few minutes with some facts that Mr. Romney did his best to obscure Wednesday.

“First of all, I don’t have a $5 trillion tax cut,” he said.

In fact, Mr. Romney has proposed lowering income tax rates, abolishing the estate tax and making other changes that would cost $5 trillion over 10 years. When he says he has no such plan, he means that he intends to make up for the lost revenue by closing loopholes — what’s benignly known as “broadening the base.” Moreover, he says he can close so many loopholes for rich people that the middle class will end up paying less.

But even if you close every rich person’s loophole, you don’t save enough money to do everything Mr. Romney wants to do. The Republican cites studies that he says prove that wrong, but when you look closely, they prove him wrong. For example, Harvard economist (and Romney adviser) Martin Feldstein showed that you could pay for Mr. Romney’s tax cut by taking away deductions — mortgage interest, charitable, state and local tax — from households making more than $100,000. But then Mr. Romney said he considers households earning up to $250,000 to be middle class. So the math collapses again.

Fact Check: Romney’s ‘pants on fire’ $5 trillion tax cut lie – the media villagers yawn

October 4, 2012

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

One of the points during last night's debate that struck me was that President Obama seemed taken aback, perhaps even dumbfounded, by the ease with which Willard "Mittens" Romney shamelessly lied about his tax cut plan.

In presidential debates you are not supposed to resort to calling your opponent a liar, and "Mittens" took full advantage of this debate code. Obama did try to rebut his tax lie on the facts, but this does not impress the feckless media villagers who prefer conflict and easy soundbites.

Let's be clear. Romney's tax plan has been scored by the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, and they determined that it would cost $5 trillion dollars over ten years. But Romney has artfully refused to specify any of the tax "loopholes" and "deductions" he claims that he will close to make his tax plan "revenue neutral" as he claims. He has a "secret plan" that he will only reveal if and when he is elected. As I have warned you before, never trade for what is behind door number 3 — it is always a sure loser.

Independent economists have analyzed that even if we were to close all the tax loopholes and limit deductions to the extent that Romney has suggested, it would not even come close to being revenue neutral.

A simple truth: tax cuts do not pay for themselves by increasing economic activity and thus increasing tax revenue. After more than 30 years of experimentation with this conservative economic theory, there is no empirical data to support that tax cuts have paid for themselves. If this were true, the U.S. would be awash in jobs today and have no national debt. It is pure fantasy.

Romney lies, Obama takes a dive

October 4, 2012

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

There are two ways to evaluate a debate. The first is what is often referred to as the "optics" or "atmospherics" of a debate, i.e., a subjective evaluation of who won based upon such things as demeanor, body language, a memorable line, etc., an emotional response. This is what the media villagers focus on exclusively.

The second is a substantive evaluation or objective evaluation of policy positions based upon the facts. The media villagers rarely do this, and even the so-called fact checkers insert their subjective opinions into supposedly objective fact checking.

The first presidential debate was Wednesday night. The parlor game is "who won?"

On the optics or atmospherics, Willard "Mittens" Romney clearly won on a subjective evaluation of demeanor and body language. He was well prepared and appropriately aggressive. For all their denials to the contrary, Americans love a fighter. They instinctively will rate the more aggressive candidate the winner of a debate. Team Obama should be aware of this.

President Obama was far too passive and passed up numerous opportunities to correct Romney's falsehoods and to advance themes his campaign has been making in ads and in speeches for months: Bain Capital, offshore banks accounts, Romney's failure to disclose his tax returns, economic patriotism, Romney's contempt for the 47%, the success of the auto rescue, 30 months of private sector job growth, Romney's dismal Massachusetts jobs record, the benefits people have already received from ObamaCare and will lose if it is repealed. Worst of all, Obama did not constantly hammer away on the radical Ryan budget/Medicare vouchers and GOP obstruction in Congress — "give me a Democratic Congress." It was almost as if Obama took a dive in this fight. If there is a strategy here, I don't see it.

On a substantive or objective evaluation, President Obama held his own and a case can be made that he was the winner. Why? Because "Mittens" Romney doubled-down on his "big lie" GOPropaganda campaign themes and even added a couple of new lies, i.e., that he will not give tax cuts to the rich and that he supports government regulations, which is completely at odds with Tea-Publican orthodoxy. One should not score points for lying. Romney lied with a disconcerting ease, but he looked good doing it, so instead of calling him out for his lies, the media villagers declared him the winner for being such an effective liar. It's the optics. And you wonder what is wrong with our politics today.

DSCC ad: ‘Jeff Flake: Too Extreme for Arizona Women’

October 4, 2012

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

I posted the other day that the DSCC has made an ad buy in the Arizona U.S. Senate race, and the DSCC is now up with its ad, "Jeff Flake: Too Extreme for Arizona Women." From the ad description:

Jeff Flake has an extreme record on women's issues.  Flake wants to let insurers deny women access to healthcare — including breast cancer screenings and has also voted to de-fund Planned Parenthood which would curb access to basic reproductive and preventative care.

Tagline: "Jeff Flake: too out there for here."

Video below the fold.

Public Policy Polling: Carmona leads by two points

October 3, 2012

Posted by AzBlueMeanie: PPP's newest poll of the Arizona Senate race finds Democrat Richard Carmona leading Republican Jeff Flake by 45-43. Carmona up 2, Romney by 9 in Arizona – Public Policy Polling: That represents a small shift in Carmona's direction since our last poll of the state three weeks ago, which had found Flake … Read more