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:
May '10
Re: Aw, Nuts. I Was This Close to Joining Rob and Ann
Stuart Creque
Duane Oyen
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. · 1 hour ago
Stuart, one could instead say that it is not worth winning the GOP nomination if you have painted yourself so far into an extreme corner that the only general election votes you get are the GOP primary voters. Both groups are necessary but not sufficient.
Just as with the Supreme Court, where we wish that Kennedy were instead a clone of Alito, reality is that the mushy middle tends to rule. To win them over you first have to not scare them away.
Reagan won because he spent the entire year of 1980 working to convince the middle that he wasn't the scary right-wing nut that the MSM had attempted to portray.
Feb '12
Re: Aw, Nuts. I Was This Close to Joining Rob and Ann
ParisParamus:
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.
Or, in other words, "Buzz off," eh?
"Ah, thank you! Buzz off to you, too! ... Buzz off! Oh thank you, buzz off to you, too! Oh, well, it's a pleasure, thank you."
May '10
Re: Aw, Nuts. I Was This Close to Joining Rob and Ann
Mitt deserves credit for that. A lot of credit"But of course not enough to remove this post or completely rewrite it!
May '10
Re: Aw, Nuts. I Was This Close to Joining Rob and Ann
Romney isn't just running with an eye towards the general. He's running as a true conservative, but one without the cultural trappings, the cowboy boots, the hunting imagery, the youbetchyas, and the ornaments and may feel good to a lot of peoole, that disarm and sooth a lot of people, but have nothing to do with actual conservative, responsible governance.In other words, Romney is a conservative for the rest of us.
Aug '10
Re: Aw, Nuts. I Was This Close to Joining Rob and Ann
You don't like 'youbetchas?' Pray tell, why not?
May '10
Re: Aw, Nuts. I Was This Close to Joining Rob and Ann
You don't like 'youbetchas?' Pray tell, why not?
Not original, but cultural shibboleths and ornaments substituting for competence and talent are no way to win. I don't hate palin, but come on!
Feb '12
Re: Aw, Nuts. I Was This Close to Joining Rob and Ann
How about this for a cultural shibboleth: anyone who graduated from an Ivy League school is excluded from running for office. This simple rule would remove 100 times the number of incompetent politicians than singling out "youbetcha" politicians.Est-ce que vous etes d'accord? Dites-moi.
May '10
Re: Aw, Nuts. I Was This Close to Joining Rob and Ann
You posit something pointless and absurd. That said, I would gladly agree as to Ivy League undergraduate programs; Harvard Law or Business is something truly impressive.
Feb '12
Re: Aw, Nuts. I Was This Close to Joining Rob and Ann
Well, I am just a child, after all, who needs to "grow up." Don't be so hard on me.
But my proposal is quite reasonable - that is if you really want to remove incompetent politicians - starting with Barack Obama, Exhibit A of a Harvard Law grad. The other exhibits would include Senators Feingold, Levin, Jeffords, Chafee, and Sarbanes, among others. And that's just Harvard Law.
If, on the other hand, you're irritated that people in fly-over country use different expressions than sophisticated New Yorkers, then your objection to "youbetcha" makes sense.
Dec '10
Re: Aw, Nuts. I Was This Close to Joining Rob and Ann
Mark Wilson
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.
Here's the scary part of what Romney said:
To what extent will Romney go to ensure that the top 1% pay a certain share? After all, the Buffett Rule is aimed at making sure the top earners pay a minimum percentage ("share") of income.
Dec '10
Re: Aw, Nuts. I Was This Close to Joining Rob and Ann
ParisParamus:
And you can't deal with the fact that most GOP voters prefer Romney! HORRORS!
Do you have any evidence to back up the claim that most GOP voters prefer Romney?
At present, most (>50%) of the GOP electorate aren't agreed on any one candidate.
But, in the Real Clear Politics national poll average at present, a plurality of GOP voters (33.6%) prefer Rick Santorum. Poor ol' Mitt Romney is only in second place, at 28.4%.
Do you really believe that saying something over and over and over will make it come true?
Dec '10
Re: Aw, Nuts. I Was This Close to Joining Rob and Ann
Duane Oyen
Reagan won because he spent the entire year of 1980 working to convince the middlethat he wasn'tthe scary right-wing nut that the MSM had attempted to portray.
Reagan spent all of 1980 convincing the middle that he was not scary or a nut. His best moments in that effort?
Proudly, unapologetically Right-wing.
Feb '12
Re: Aw, Nuts. I Was This Close to Joining Rob and Ann
Stuart Creque
Here's the scary part of what Romney said:
To what extent will Romney go to ensure that the top 1% pay a certain share? After all, the Buffett Rule is aimed at making sure the top earners pay a minimum percentage ("share") of income. ·
The man lacks political courage. I believe he is a very decent man - in fact, a very, very good man - and I love the fact that he's Mormon (Mormons are fine folks, in my book) - but he has never taken an unpopular stand on a big issue and stayed with it (apart from defending religious liberties in Massachusetts, perhaps). Nor has he ever been first to take a strong position on an issue. He's happy to talk tough about Iran now that others have been doing it for a while, just as he was happy to support "the surge" in Iraq once it was clear it was working (he waited until Aug. 2008), but he will always follow, not lead.
Oct '10
Re: Aw, Nuts. I Was This Close to Joining Rob and Ann
isnt his plan similars to huntsman? or not?
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111904583204576544703176083600.html
May '10
Re: Aw, Nuts. I Was This Close to Joining Rob and Ann
Stuart Creque
Reagan spent all of 1980 convincing the middle that he was not scary or a nut. His best moments in that effort?
Proudly, unapologetically Right-wing.
Not one candidate this year would not say exactly the same thing, substituting Obama for Jimmuh. And mean every word, and have their current platform proposals match those words. Not one.
Dec '10
Re: Aw, Nuts. I Was This Close to Joining Rob and Ann
Duane Oyen
Stuart Creque
Reagan spent all of 1980 convincing the middle that he was not scary or a nut. His best moments in that effort?
Not one candidate this year would not say exactly the same thing,substituting Obama for Jimmuh. And mean every word, and have their current platform proposals match those words. Not one. · 28 minutes ago
Then why are you so frightened of Santorum? Why do you think he's so scary and nutty that people won't vote for him?
May '10
Re: Aw, Nuts. I Was This Close to Joining Rob and Ann
I'm not the least bit frightened of Santorum, Stuart.
1) I do think that enough conservatives of a certain completely unpragmatic and totally idealistic stripe, who sincerely believe that the electorate is all secret TEA Partiers drawn astray by the MSM, are deluded- believing that people outside of our very conservative activist base would vote for Santorum over Obama. They are kidding themselves.
2) The more such dreaming substitutes for thinking, the more we provide credible ammunition to use against us this Fall. Here is NRO noticing that.
3) The comments on this thread about the tax program illustrate how this is not about policy, it is purely personal, and I am not sure I understand why. Here is actual fact-based commentary about taxes. Ronald Reagan is not running! None of these guys is Reagan! Get over it!
4) Paul Ryan is a devout Catholic. Marco Rubio is. Mitt Romney is devoutly religious. Tim Pawlenty is a strong evangelical Christian. Do you think that they don't support families or think that social issues are unimportant? No, they are simply wiser about addressing such issues in a campaign for president, not bishop.
It isn't that hard, Rick.