Mitt Romney has an arithmetic problem. He intends to cut taxes, increase defense spending, increase entitlement spending, and cut the deficit -- a budget-policy recipe that translates into complete gibberish.
Not so, says the Republican. Once various tax deductions are eliminated, the numbers will add up just fine.
Which tax deductions? Romney doesn't want to tell you.
In a wide-ranging interview with Time Magazine, Mitt Romney declined to say which deductions he would eliminate from the tax code in order to make his plan to cut tax rates across the board revenue-neutral.
"I know our Democrat [sic] friends would love to have me specify one or two so they could amass the special interest to fight that effort," Romney told managing editor Richard Stengel when asked to specify which deductions he would eliminate.
This just won't do. Romney could release his tax returns, but he won't because he's afraid Democrats will be mean to him. Romney could disclose his bundlers, but he won't because he's afraid Democrats will be mean to him. Romney could provide detailed policy agenda, but he won't because he's afraid voters won't like the specifics.
And he could point to the tax deductions he'll rely on -- exclusively -- to lower the deficit, but he's afraid to do that, too.
And John Sununu thinks Obama's a "wuss"? Much of Romney's policy platform is predicated on cowardice and fear that someone might yell at him. As Jamison Foser put it, it's "amazing" that Romney thinks "'because I'll be criticized if I do' is a compelling reason for not disclosing things."
Of course, it's also worth noting that in the same interview, Romney said the home-mortgage-interest deduction, the health care deduction, and the charitable-contribution deduction would all be protected if he's elected.
As it turns out, these tend to be the deductions with the biggest price tags -- meaning that if Romney considers all of them off-limits, while he's slashing taxes and increasing spending, it will be literally impossible for him to make his numbers add up.
Paul Ryan recently conceded that campaign officials "haven't run the numbers" on the bigger budget picture. Is it any wonder why not?
Leave a Comment:
They're just making stuff up.
"Romney thinks "'because I'll be criticized if I do'"
Which points to exactly why he's sooo not ready to be "Commander in Chief"! Robme is spineless, indecisive on the issues, and always whining about "it's the democrats fault" - he's not a leader but another over-indulged, spoiled, rich kid - WE have already had one that left us on the financial cliff-edge, started 2 unnecessary wars, and was truly an embarrassment WE don't need another one!
Obama/Biden 2012!!
Robme, I like that!
Cause if he gets into office he will "RobUS all - me/you/the sheeple"....Thank you
Zora
RobMe to me is a total manchild.
Minus the 'man'.
I have to wonder whether Romney's sense of entitlement is so powerful that it never entered his mind that he would actually have to campaign: to stake out positions and defend them from attack. The Republican primary process was rigged to hand Romney the nomination on a platter. Does he think the general will work in the same way? Considering how much work Republicans are putting into voter-suppression efforts, I can't say that he would be wrong. I think in the Republican mind, the only purpose voters serve is to ratify the decision of the party elites, but even that isn't a requirement.
It's a little ironic that this all happening when the GOP nominee is a Mormon. A little over a century ago, Reed Smoot of Utah's seating in the Senate was challenged on the basis that he was an apostle in the LDS church (kinda sorta semi like a cardinal in the RC church). During the the course of the Senate investigation into whether he was fit to serve, it was uncovered that the Mormons had their collective fingers crossed back in 1890 when they swore they were giving up polygamy. Asked about how a Mormon male went about getting additional wives, one witness told how the man would seek his first wife's consent, and that even if he didn't get it he could still go ahead and take other wives. Asked what then the first wife's consent amounted, the answer was that her consent amounted to her consent.
In other words, it's nice to have buy-in from the little woman, but it's no big deal if you don't. I think that pretty much sums up today's Republican Party's attitude toward democracy.
Romney is a typical over-privileged wuss. He would not go in the military because he was scared of combat. And that was not even the beginning. As a class bully, he bullied weaker kids because he was scared of their differences.
Now everything he says and does is based on tearing down the other guy without expressing any details ... what a wuss.
That is a good point about how women dress with that stereo type illusion. Now it can be understood, why the Republican wear the more frill clothes so they fit that narrow-minded stereo type view of being a lesser woman and men can dominate. Some of these Republican elected women of late you watch and listen to them and you notice in their speech is of low quality and lacks any real significance or value. These elected Republican women are playing it up to the men that they are lesser than men and making it look that they have no authority over any man. That stereo type of how a woman dresses can go two ways. Michelle Bachman is probably the biggest example of this behavior and that woman definitely really lacks something. And Michelle Bachman does really fit into the current Republican mindset right now so don’t let them lie to you when other Republicans say otherwise, when they are all in it together.
The double standard is very clear.
Obama could not have gotten as far as a candidate if he had run the campaign that Romney is running. In 2008, they meme was Obama had great speeches and no substance. Romney has nothing, and here we are.
And Romney has gotten this far with the aid of the MSM.
Yet, you still have hack like Jack Tapper and Mark Halperin (of Time Magazine) saying Obama got a pass in 2008 and now.
How many times did we hear: "Who is Barack Obama?" "Obama has to win over working class voters" And Romney doesn't? Why not? Because he has so much in common with them?
Why does Obama have to do more to prove himself more that Romney does?
Total BS.
Because he is the better man
No problems with the twelve tax returns Obama has released. Be a man Mitt!
This is pretty funny. The Democrats haven't produced a budget for several years now, precisely because they can't bear the scrutiny of consecutive trillion dollar deficits. And now, the left wants Romney to be specific?
It's just another reason the left should be ignored.
The Democrats haven't produced a budget because the Republicans have decided that 40% is a majority.
President Obama has submitted a Budget Proposal every year he has been president. It is not his job to have it adopted - it is the job of the Congress and Senate to come up with a Budget Resolution that will control the purse strings for the next FY.
See, they could not come to an agreement on the Budget Resolutions, so they have been passing Continuing Resolutions to fund the government for the past few years.
The Senate passed a budget resolution for fiscal 2010 on April 29, 2009. Since then, there's been a peculiar tea-flavored obstructionism in Congress. It's like trying to agree with your date on where to go to dinner; you suggest Italian, and she wants tire rims and anthrax. There's really no compromise to be made, so instead you stay home and raid the fridge for leftovers.
So Shooter, you don't think it is important to find out what a candidate is going to do after he is elected before you vote for him? The details are the most important thing to know aren't they? Romney and Ryan won't give us any.
The budget is not really related to what this article is about.
And I noticed you are not ignoring us. Typical right wing nonsense. Doing the opposite of what you say.
To all above, "It is better to be silent and thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt".
Budgets are decided with a majority vote. Not even 50%, just a majority.
A budget has been produced every year in the US Congress. The US government shuts down if no budget is produced. What you mean to say is that no new budget resolution has been presented; they have instead re-adopted the 2010 budget for 2 years.
A majority by definition is 50+1. This statement makes no sense.
Additionally all bills with a handful of exceptions (amendments and cloture) only require 50+1 to pass in the US Congress. This statement does not refute the argument given about the filibuster; this statement is a non-sequitur to the filibuster argument. If a filibuster is initiated then in order to break the filibuster a super majority must be present and vote for cloture (60+ votes). If a filibuster is initiated with every bill then the only way to move forward on a piece of legislation is to pass the 60 vote threshold. If congress is unable to pass this threshold then the bill stays in filibuster limbo until it is retracted, killed, or taken off the schedule.
What I think you have confused here is the budget reconciliation process; budget reconciliation requires that a budget be adopted by the US Congress. The reconciliation process is then to amend the currently existing budget. It is through the budget reconciliation that the US Congress has kept the 2010 budget in place and prevented changes or an introduction of a new budget. This argument works against the point you were attempting to make.
In 2011, after the republicans took control of the House passed just 90 bills into law.. Just 61 bills have become law to date in 2012 of 3,914 bills that have been introduced by lawmakers or less than 2% of all proposed laws, according to a USA Today analysis of records since 1947 kept by the U.S. House Clerk Office..
This 112th congress failed to enacted $1.2 Trillion in deficit reduction...
The 111th congress controlled by the democrats 258 laws enacted in 2010 and 125 in 2009..
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/story/2012-08-14/unproductive-congress-not-passing-bills/
As long as the press lets him get away with it, he will continue to speak this nonsense. The press must write columns and speak volumes about why it is impossible to cut taxes and make those sums up through ending certain deductions. Heck, if all deductions were ended, it still wouldn't pay for all those tax cuts for the rich.
......Sorry to be all Debbie Downer and everything, but is there any evidence that not disclosing details is hurting Romney? With anyone, of course, but the people who definitely weren't going to vote for him in the first place? Any evidence? Anybody? Bueller?
By not disclosing details, Romney effectively gets to say whatever he damn well wants about what he'll do, in the broadest and most appealing terms. And no one but dirty liberal hippies will point this out. "I'll make America great again!" Great! Who could object to that? Of course, the details could be that all prisoners and orphans will be sold to corporations as indentured servants, but...America. Great. Pass the biscuits.
Wolf Blitzer will stroke his beard and declare it "troubling," but note that Romney's "policies" have broad GOP support. And at the top of our next hour on CNN, "Paul Ryan's eyes: Could they BE any bluer?"
The only thing Blitzer would find troubling is thinking up debate questions that Romney will answer. Ultimately he'll concede that Romney wants to talk about the issues - something Romney and CNN seldom actually do.
Blitzer might find it troubling, but then "we'll have to leave it there."
Vulture/Voucher 2012
Proving Two Rights DO Make a Wrong!
;-)
Yet Romney will get the votes from those who think they need Obama's original birth certificate and his college transcripts. The hypocrisy of Republicans is mind-numbing.
We've all been trying to see a strategy behind Romney's lies, but they are of such breathtaking scope and frequency, without a trace of self-doubt, that perhaps we should consider a medical condition, perhaps Korsakoff's syndrome. True, he may still be a completely spineless worm who'll say the first thing that pops into his head to please his immediate listener, but he may actually be unable to help himself. Republicans have had a demented President with a great stage persona before, maybe they think they can hand us another one.
He can't have Korsakoffs, he's not allowed to drink alcohol.
The Democrats should be pushing the line of "Mitt Romney is a weak coward who can't face criticism". Allegedly the conservative mindset is to look for a Big Father to rule them -- show them that this ain't that guy.
Surely "being afraid of people criticising you" is a quality that should disqualify a person from being President. I mean come on, having a President so scared of criticism that he refuses to talk about anything? That would be pathetic.
I'm a Wisconsinite who has watched Ryan's career through the years, most especially since he put on the Tea Party hat and began pontificating about Ayn Rand (when not trying to assure people that he is a traditional good Catholic boy in spite of his deep admiration for Rand). What really surprises me is the perception of this guy by the media outside of Wisconsin. Nice guy? Seriously? He is a hard-nosed right wing opportunist who, one suspects, would sell his own mother if there were any career advantage in doing so. He is relentlessly ambitious, and this will inevitably cause his career to crash and burn. What stands out most about Ryan is that, by every indication, he is flat-out amoral. That's a rare quality. There is no right or wrong. Anything that you can get away with is perfectly OK if it furthers one's career, and it simply isn't relevant if you crush people in the process. If it serves his purpose, he will tell you anything you want to hear/recite anything you want him to say. He most sincerely believes whatever those above him want him to believe. This makes him useful to those who matter in America. And that's the alpha and omega of Ryan's career public service -- it's about Paul Ryan and the way that every measured decision he makes benefits Paul Ryan.
Don't know whether he'd sell his mom, but right now he's already marketing her for the purpose of selling Americans on his kill-Medicare "plan".
Vulture/Voucher 2012
Proving Two Rights DO Make a Wrong!
;-)
The Bain Files: The Documents
when my parents asked for my grades at school i said, sorry but no. you can't see them. if you do then you'll criticize and attack me. and i just can't have that.
when looking for a job there's no way that i fill out an application or hand over a resume. if i did they'll find out how many times i've been fired, so...yeah.
and obviously when i got married i didn't tell my wife of the scandalous dating past or else i'd be in trouble. that's why i'm staying quiet because I KNOW WHAT I'VE DONE IS WRONG!!!
if he's fighting for privacy rights then he should be all in favor of what same sex couples do behind closed doors or if women want to go to the doctor to consider having an abortion.
Mormonism is a sociopathic cult and Ryan acts just like them. They have no integrity and anything that furthers their family or career is approved...straight from the top...their leaders. These guys are completely detrimental to America and to democracy. They will bring about our collapse. All republicans must be defeated if we are to survive as a nation. Yes you can talk about Mormonism when the candidate is an ordained bishop.
Shhhh…. that's a secret, we won't say anything specific at all, you just have to trust us.
We won't cut Medicare (but we WILL repeal Obamacare-so you'll pay more for Rxs and remove 25 year olds from your policy) our budgets are virtually identical, but "different". But you'll find out after the election in what ways.
No! Don't ask, let us tell you our spiel.
You'll attack us for it… well if so, it must be pretty bad, then.
"I know our Democrat [sic] friends would love to have me specify one or two so they could amass the special interest to fight that effort,"
WHAAAAT???? Are you telling me that your opponents might actually speak out against your brilliant ideas? In PUBLIC, even??????
Well, this is definitely a first for American politics, I can tell you.
God, what an idiot.....
Personally, I believe it would be nice if their were no borders except in name only, one currency, one government for the world, and that the laws were the same world wide, with no travel restrictions for law abiding adults, people would be judged by what they say and do, not on what they look or sound like, and people would compromise enough to tolerate each other and stop wars.
John Lennon, is that you...?
Not one of my friends have asked about Romney's tax records. They care more about jobs. Can we talk about jobs instead?? Seems like no one cares about his tax info. Thanks.
Did you want to talk about his job record as Governor or the jobs created/lost/oursourced by Bain?
Did you mean the jobs created by the stimulus, or Obamas job plan that congress wouldn't pass?
This particular post isn't about jobs per se, but there are plenty other ones on this blog that are.