Aw, Nuts. I Was This Close to Joining Rob and Ann
Under deadline pressure yesterday, I had time to do nothing more than look at the headlines, but Mitt Romney's twenty percent across-the-board cut in personal income tax rates sounded darned good--even (the highest compliment I know how to pay) Reaganesque.
At last, I thought, Romney has come up with a truly big idea, a policy proposal that combines detail with a truly sweeping sense of vision, a real affirmation of his intention to restrain the federal government, promote dramatic economic growth, and let us all keep more of what we earn.
Except, I see on Googling around this morning, that he hasn't.
As so often these days, our own Ben Domenech provides the best round-up in The Transom:
The WSJ points out that the new 28% top rate is actually higher than the 25% Romney had promised earlier in the campaign. http://vlt.tc/5j6 Glenn Hubbard: http://vlt.tc/5jb “[T]he plan would cut all six current tax brackets - 10 percent, 15 percent, 25 percent, 28 percent, 33 percent, 35 percent, depending on a taxpayer’s income - by the same proportion of 20 percent. That would produce this new set of tax brackets: 8 percent, 12 percent, 20 percent, 22.4 percent, 26.4 percent, and 28 percent. 'It’s a marginal rate cut for every American,' Mr. Hubbard said.” But for my part, I’m having trouble sorting out from the website’s post a number of key issues. Here’s what they’ve released so far: http://vlt.tc/5j4
We’ll see what he says on Friday, but Romney’s initial comments in the rollout – video here – are very troublesome: http://vlt.tc/5ib “And in order to limit any impact on the deficit, because I do not want to add to the deficit, and also to make sure we continue to have progressivity in our code, I’m going to limit the deductions and exemptions particularly for high income folks. And by the way, I want to make sure that you understand, for middle income families, the deductibility of home mortgage interest and charitable contributions, those things will continue, but for high income folks, we are going to cut back on that so we make sure the top 1% keeps paying, paying the current share they’re paying or more.”
Romney's proposal isn't all that bad, as best I can tell, but it appears to reflect one more tactical repositioning, not a strategic vision.
As much as I'd have liked to join my beloved Ann Coulter--and as acutely as I remain aware of Santorum's and Gingrich's flaws--I find that I'm still unable to pick up the Romney pom-poms.
UPDATE: For what it's worth--and, yes, I know that the world is scarcely hanging on news of my personal deliberations--but after doing more reading and mulling while I had a couple of cups of coffee just now, I find myself concluding that Romney deserves more credit than I was at first disposed to give him. As the Wall Street Journal put it in its lead editorial, "Romney's Tax Reboot,"
Conservative voters who have wondered if he [Romney] is one of them can now see a tangible proposal that will be a governing priority, no merely a pledge to fight for reform some day. It gives him something to fight for beyond his business biography....
Now we're getting somewhere.
We'll see how Santorum and Newt respond--whereas for weeks now it has been they who have been threatening Romney from the right, now he has flanked them on their own right, and a race in which all three scramble to demonstrate that they're conservative on taxes could prove a thing of real beauty--but Romney does indeed appear to be taking us somewhere.
Mitt deserves credit for that. A lot of credit.
- Comment (77)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (4)
Comments:
Re: Aw, Nuts. I Was This Close to Joining Rob and Ann
EJHill
Then explain this, the scene outside your home this morning! · 13 minutes ago
EJ, how'd you know?
May '10
Re: Aw, Nuts. I Was This Close to Joining Rob and Ann
The world hangs on your every word, Peter, every single word.
Although I have never believed an endorsement ever turned the tide in any election in modern American history.
Dec '10
Re: Aw, Nuts. I Was This Close to Joining Rob and Ann
Mark Wilson
Paul A. Rahe
Mark Wilson
He is giving them a 20% cut in their tax rates, which in most cases will more than offset the loss of the charitable deduction. That may remove some of the incentive, but I don't see how it will be any "harder".
Incentives matter bigtime.
Definitely. But let's distinguish between removing an incentive and making something "harder". They will have more post-tax money available, so it will not be a hardship to give the same amount of money to charity. I think it's the difference between a gift card and cash.
As for the broader effect of Americans having more post-tax income on the economy and the related effects on charities, I don't know if it would be a net positive or negative.
If Romney buys into the "Buffett rule" that top earners have to pay a minimum percentage (say, 28% applied to ALL their income), that's a proposal to tax away dollars and make them unavailable for large donations. A Buffett or Gates would simply not have the option of giving away most of their fortune. Washington would insist on its cut first.
Aug '10
Re: Aw, Nuts. I Was This Close to Joining Rob and Ann
Let's be perfectly clear on one thing - Romney's primary goal is and always has been to win the election in November. He's not running to win the GOP nomination or promote Mormonism or because he's bored. He's focused like a laser on beating Obama because if you don't win all the proposals and programs and plans mean zilch, nada, nothing.
Having said that, it appears with his latest plan he is trying to give the base a little peek under the kimono without going full flasher and spooking the independents. In other words, he is trying to insulate himself against the inevitable "Heartless rich guy" attacks in the general election while keeping his powder as dry as possible about how he is going to accomplish his oft stated goal of reducing spending while stimulating the economy.
You may not like his lack of purity but winning elections requires strategy, not just unabashed fealty to an ideology.
Edited on February 23, 2012 at 8:51pmMar '11
Re: Aw, Nuts. I Was This Close to Joining Rob and Ann
Percival
Paul A. Rahe
He would have done far better to propose eliminating the mortgage deduction for everyone. It serves only to push up the price of housing.
Given the current state of the housing market, I'd just as soon we eased out the mortgage deduction, rather than eliminating it outright.
I think the "phase-out" approach is the only feasible ways to fix a LOT of our problems, rather than the "shock therapy" approach. It's impossible to kill Medicare in one fell swoop. It is possible, however, to pass a law to gradually eliminate it over a 15 to 20 year period so that current recipients still get it, but younger voters... which are skeptical of such program anyway... will know to plan for the future differently. The problem with this approach is the prospect of future Democrat Congresses or Presidencies reversing this, and I don't have an easy answer to that... ultimately, winning most elections is the only way. But my idea is to kind of do in reverse what Democrats have done over time: gradually get the public used to expecting these programs.
Feb '12
Re: Aw, Nuts. I Was This Close to Joining Rob and Ann
Frozen Chosen: Let's be perfectly clear on one thing - Romney's primary goal is and always has been to win the election in November. He's not running to win the GOP nomination or promote Mormonism or because he's bored. He's focused like a laser on beating Obama because if you don'twin all the proposals and programs and plans mean zilch, nada, nothing.
Having said that, it appears with his latest plan he is trying to give the base a little peek under the kimono without going full flasher and spooking the independents. In other words, he is trying to insulate himself against the inevitable "Heartless rich guy" attacks in the general election while keeping his powder as dry as possible about how he is going to accomplish his oft stated goal of reducing spending while stimulating the economy.
You may not like his lack of purity but winning elections requires strategy, not just unabashed fealty to an ideology. · 39 minutes ago
Edited 37 minutes ago
Serious question: Is there anything that Romney says that you think is both (a) incorrect and (b) not justified by saying "winning elections requires strategy"?
Feb '12
Re: Aw, Nuts. I Was This Close to Joining Rob and Ann
Duane Oyen
I like my donation tax deductions- these days they are about twice our mortgage interest deduction.
But we do not, and never have, conditioned our donations whether or not there was a tax break. I suspect that we are not alone. Will Warren Buffet have to reconfigure his foundation and find different shelters? Sure.
Do we care? Are you kidding me? · 2 hours ago
Exactly. After the government takes a massive chunk of my money for liberal programs, liberal bureaucrats, and liberal unions, I have a relative pittance to give to things that actually deserve my money. The tax deduction for charitable donations increases the amount I can give, even though the government still gets the lion's share. When we eliminate most of the liberal programs and payoffs, I'll be happy to consider eliminating the charitable deduction.
Feb '11
Re: Aw, Nuts. I Was This Close to Joining Rob and Ann
Leporello
Duane Oyen
Exactly. After the government takes a massive chunk of my money for liberal programs, liberal bureaucrats, and liberal unions, I have a relative pittance to give to things that actually deserve my money. The tax deduction for charitable donations increases the amount I can give, even though the government still gets the lion's share. When we eliminate most of the liberal programs and payoffs, I'll be happy to consider eliminating the charitable deduction.
Agreed, but also, in many places the charities are all that's left after the cyclone of destruction that is leftist, statist, multi-generational welfare hits. Anything that limits their capacity to act - impacts entire communities, which may face very bleak futures, both rural and inner-city if this occurs. These are places where only a handful of heroic individuals, families and mostly religious charities still function amid a sea of sloth and despair. If Romney's policies limit the incentive to give - these institutions will be hurt, and the only non-governmental beacon of hope could well be snuffed out.
Edited on February 23, 2012 at 9:46pmMar '11
Re: Aw, Nuts. I Was This Close to Joining Rob and Ann
EJHill
Then explain this, the scene outside your home this morning! · 2 hours ago
Hang on a minute - is that Calista next to Peter?
Dec '10
Re: Aw, Nuts. I Was This Close to Joining Rob and Ann
Romney is sure doing a good job at not running for the GOP nomination, I'll give him that.
Why, he may be so successful at it that he doesn't even become the GOP nominee. That should give him a real boost with the independents in November.
Feb '12
Re: Aw, Nuts. I Was This Close to Joining Rob and Ann
St. Salieri
Leporello
Duane Oyen
Exactly... When we eliminate most of the liberal programs and payoffs, I'll be happy to consider eliminating the charitable deduction.
Agreed, but also, in many places the charities are all that's left after the cyclone of destruction that is leftist, statist, multi-generational welfare hits. Anything that limits their capacity to act - impacts entire communities, which may face very bleak futures, both rural and inner-city if this occurs. These are places where only a handful of heroic individuals, families and mostly religious charities still function amid a sea of sloth and despair. If Romney's policies limit the incentive to give - these institutions will be hurt, and the only non-governmental beacon of hope could well be snuffed out.
Yes, indeed. Absolutely true.
Dec '10
Re: Aw, Nuts. I Was This Close to Joining Rob and Ann
Douglas
Itispossible, however, to pass a law to gradually eliminate it over a 15 to 20 year period so that current recipients still get it, but younger voters... which are skeptical of such program anyway... will know to plan for the future differently. The problem with this approach is the prospect of future Democrat Congresses or Presidencies reversing this, and I don't have an easy answer to that...
The other problem is convincing all those younger voters to continue paying for an entitlement to which they are not entitled while paying for their own future provision as well. Someone has to bite the bullet. Perhaps it's time for those responsible for these programs to suffer the consequences of their actions.
Mar '11
Re: Aw, Nuts. I Was This Close to Joining Rob and Ann
There is definitely too much mischief to undo all in one fell swoop. The mortgage deduction has built a little bubble of its own that is baked into current housing prices, so letting the air out of that without causing even more havoc is going to be tricky.
It should be doable though. We'd better hope it is, anyway.
Aug '10
Re: Aw, Nuts. I Was This Close to Joining Rob and Ann
Leporello
Serious question: Is there anything that Romney says that you think is both (a) incorrect and (b) not justified by saying "winning elections requires strategy"? · 43 minutes ago
I don't agree with all of Romney's policies, I just think he's the best of an imperfect bunch. In fact, if you notice, that's all we get to run for POTUS in this country are a bunch of flawed candidates. Why is that, do you suppose? Could it be because we are talking about politics, perhaps.
My ideology is pure but my outlook is realistic.
May '10
Re: Aw, Nuts. I Was This Close to Joining Rob and Ann
Stuart Creque
Romney is sure doing a good job at not running for the GOP nomination, I'll give him that.
Why, he may be so successful at it that he doesn't even become the GOP nominee. That should give him a real boost with the independents in November. · 37 minutes ago
Only with regard to the Absolutist Right, Stuart. His problem with them is insufficient ideological purity; such ideological purity would kill the ticket among middle-independents who decide elections.
If you're determined to write in Ron Paul, I hope you live in NY or California, where it won't make any difference. Enjoy the lefty Supreme Court and the Full Monty ObamaCare you seek.
Dec '10
Re: Aw, Nuts. I Was This Close to Joining Rob and Ann
Duane Oyen
Stuart Creque
Romney is sure doing a good job at not running for the GOP nomination, I'll give him that.
Why, he may be so successful at it that he doesn't even become the GOP nominee. That should give him a real boost with the independents in November.
Only with regard to the Absolutist Right, Stuart. His problem with them is insufficient ideological purity; such ideological purity would kill the ticket among middle-independents who decide elections.
Mitt Romney's problem is that he's been running as though he had the nomination sewn up. My point is simply that he can't win the general election without winning the GOP nomination. Disparaging and dismissing GOP voters who have doubts about him is a nomination-losing strategy.
May '10
Re: Aw, Nuts. I Was This Close to Joining Rob and Ann
Stuart Creque
If Romney buys into the "Buffett rule" that top earners have to pay a minimum percentage (say, 28% applied to ALL their income), that's a proposal to tax away dollars and make them unavailable for large donations. A Buffett or Gates would simply not have the option of giving away most of their fortune. Washington would insist on its cut first. · 3 hours ago
Is the Buffett rule part of his proposal? If it is, I missed it. I only understood that he's going to cut the marginal rates, so everyone will have 20% lower taxes, then reduce the charitable deduction for high earners to make up the difference in tax revenue.
Of course mathematically this works the other way around to the same effect. Charitable donations lower your taxable income, and you end up paying a lower rate on the latter. It sounds like the Romney plan will reduce the effect of charitable donations, leaving you with slightly higher taxable income, but then charging a 20% reduced marginal rate on that income. He claims he will design the deduction so the two should offset.
Feb '12
Re: Aw, Nuts. I Was This Close to Joining Rob and Ann
Frozen Chosen
Leporello
Serious question: Is there anything that Romney says that you think is both (a) incorrect and (b) not justified by saying "winning elections requires strategy"? · 43 minutes ago
I don't agree with all of Romney's policies, I just think he's the best of an imperfect bunch. In fact, if you notice, that's all we get to run for POTUS in this country are a bunch of flawed candidates. Why is that, do you suppose? Could it be because we are talking about politics, perhaps.
My ideology is pure but my outlook is realistic.
OK, thanks, I see. I agree with the same concepts. We simply disagree about the outer bounds of what makes a candidate acceptable (as you know from my recent post on the member feed about Romney), and about what is realistic. But that's a typical disagreement. W.F. Buckley's principle is simple and right - but applying it is often difficult.
Mar '11
Re: Aw, Nuts. I Was This Close to Joining Rob and Ann
The King Prawn
The other problem is convincing all those younger voters to continue paying for an entitlement to which they are not entitled while paying for their own future provision as well. Someone has to bite the bullet. Perhaps it's time for those responsible for these programs to suffer the consequences of their actions. · 1 hour ago
That one's a little easier, King. One, you have a phase-out of the taxes that pay this stuff as well, and totally kill such taxes MUCH earlier than the rest of the phase out. Two, you make up the difference out of general taxation and show the public the bill saying "See? This is how expensive this stuff was, and in a few years, it'll be gone". Think of this approach as one big loan payment book, where the thinner it gets, the better you feel as the debt goes away.
May '10
Re: Aw, Nuts. I Was This Close to Joining Rob and Ann
This tax proposal sounds very reasonable. If you have a problem with a few of the details, so what: any proposal will be a creature of Congress as much, or more than the President.
I'm really curious what the posting will look like here on Romneychet--Ricochet--after he wins the nomination, and then the Presidency. Will there you guys still be attacking Romney in the fall? After he wins?
You can't win something with nothing, and all of the past and present Romney alternatives are general election nothings. I'm not even sure Mitch Daniels wouldn't have been a primary loser.
Romney is, overall, the most conservative of the candidates. You just don't like his mild-mannered was, so you find flaws in him, and ignore worse flaws in Newt, or Santorum (or Perry).
And you can't deal with the fact that most GOP voters prefer Romney! HORRORS!
Nothing can't beat something. Think too steps a head, and realize that Newt, Perry, and Santorum never had a chance. Grow up and stop cutting off our nose to spite your nation's face.
Edited on February 23, 2012 at 11:51pm