Romney Tax Studies: Candidate Contradicts Their Conclusions

Mitt Romney Tax Policy Studies: Candidate Seemingly Contradicts Their Conclusions

WASHINGTON -- Over the past few weeks, the Romney campaign has repeatedly pointed to five separate studies supporting the candidate's contention that a dramatic, across-the-board, reduction in tax rates can be paid for by economic growth and the elimination of deductions and exemptions for high-income earners.

Romney himself referenced these five studies in an interview with Meet the Press on Sunday. His running mate, Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), said the same during his run through the Sunday show circuit.

A closer examination, however, calls into question the fact that there are even five studies at all. Last week, the Romney campaign passed along the five documents that the candidate had referenced on NBC's Meet the Press. Three of the five are blog posts or op-eds (as opposed to academic literature), and two of those three are written by the same author: Harvard economist Martin Feldstein.

Of the remaining two studies, one is the tax reform white paper authored by Romney-backing economists and paid for by Romney for President, Inc. (in an email to PolitiFact, the Romney campaign highlighted several Wall Street Journal editorials in place of the campaign white paper as the "fifth" study).

The final study, produced by Princeton University's Harvey Rosen, backs the Romney campaign's assertions by arguing that people will work more, accumulate more income, pay more taxes, and seek out fewer loopholes if their tax rates are lowered. But even that report has several nuances that complicate the candidate's use of it.

The statement follows months of refusals from the Romney campaign to actually detail what kind of deductions and exemptions the candidate would seek to eliminate once in office. George Stephanopoulos, hosting GMA, pushed back, noting that Romney was now actually distancing himself from a study he routinely cites as supportive.

The situation seems to leave the Romney campaign with supportive economists [that they've paid for], but no purely supportive academic study.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/1 ... 84527.html

Gee, you mean the numbers don't add up? You mean he still won't give any specifics about what he'll do, or who it will impact?

("If we tell you what we'd do, we'll lose...")

Well at least Romney's proposal gets off to the right start by simplifying taxes, eliminating deductions and loopholes, and lowering rates. I agree it lacks needed details, though.

Obama's plan keeps the current complicated system, and makes it even more complicated. He gets rid of the Bush tax cuts for those making over $200/250K (why not eliminate all of them if the cuts were such a bad idea?) which adds a new calculation to make when doing your taxes. His Buffet plan is even more complicated and neither does much to reduce the deficit. In addition, neither does anything to stimulate the economy.

What it lacks is FACTS....

But then "[They're] not going to let [their] campaign be dictated by fact-checkers," We don' need no steenkin' facts.

Call it a blue print to simplify taxes and eliminate deductions and loopholes.

You didn't get the 2000 pages of details about the ACA until after the election either.

Actually the FACTS I'm hearing this morning from independent tax-analysis organizations say that RMoney is either lying--(which gets MY vote)--or the only way he can get to the budget he's proposing is: Elimination of: a) mortgage-interest deductions; b) charitable contribution deductions; c) deductions for state/local taxes; and that it will fall heaviest on middle-income earners making between $100,000-$250,000... So much for your "job-creators", and screwing the middle class.