Permalink to Is Mitt Conceding the Premise Again?

Is Mitt Conceding the Premise Again?

 

In Chandler, Arizona today, Governor Romney announced an initiative to lower individual rates on every American by 20 percent. Contrasting his approach with President Obama’s, Romney said, “Raising taxes will kill jobs. My plan will create jobs. That’s the difference between the two of us.”  Excellent contrast.

Just in the event we become too enthusiastic, Romney tempered his initiative by saying he would limit allowable deductions and exemptions for high income earners, “…so that we make sure the top 1% keeps paying the current share they’re paying or more.”  Thus does the premise of the left become the foundation for this Republican yet again. And in case you didn’t understand that he prefers to divide fairness according to class, he added, “We want middle-income Americans to be the place we focus our help, because it’s middle-income Americans that have been hurt by this Obama economy.”

Why the division? Why the picking and choosing which class gets more relief? Why buy into the premise of the progressive thereby giving it, and by extension Obama, undeserved legitimacy? Why set yourself up to have your words thrown back at you in the general when you will hear Obama say, “Governor, you yourself agreed with me that the top 1% percent needs to pay ‘…the current share or more.'” Why does this gentleman insist on this kind of thing?

As I’ve said before, if he’s the nominee, I’ll vote for him, but I may need a Tylenol subsidy before it’s all said and done. In the meantime, can someone get this guy a few Milton Friedman videos?

Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s growing community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Get your first month free.

Members have made 34 comments.

  1. 1
  2. 2
  1. Profile photo of Dave Carter Contributor
    Dave Carter Post author

    Folks, our member Doug Lee has an excellent post on the same topic right here. I didn’t realize he had covered this one when I posted this. He has an excellent take on the same topic, though and it’s certainly worth checking out.

    • #1
    • February 23, 2012 at 1:01 am
  2. Profile photo of Mel Foil Inactive

    You’re not electing him as much as you’re electing his pollster. That’s my impression of Romney.

    • #2
    • February 23, 2012 at 1:01 am
  3. Profile photo of Casey Member

    “The shell is sometimes throwne into the fire, when the kernel is eaten as a sweet morsel.”

    • #3
    • February 23, 2012 at 1:02 am
  4. Profile photo of The King Prawn Member

    Another crack in the facade…

    • #4
    • February 23, 2012 at 1:15 am
  5. Profile photo of LowcountryJoe Member

    Romney: My plan will create jobs. That’s the difference between the two of us.

    Why couldn’t Mitt have said this instead:

    The plan would be to peel back government so that an atmosphere for job creation would emerge. This would restore the needed incentives which prior government planning removed. That’s the difference between the two of us.

    • #5
    • February 23, 2012 at 1:18 am
  6. Profile photo of The King Prawn Member
    LowcountryJoe: Why couldn’t Mitt have said this instead:

    The plan would be to peel back government so that an atmosphere for job creation would emerge. This would restore the needed incentives which prior government planning removed. That’sthe difference between the two of us. · 0 minutes ago

    But we want politicians to be honest with us.

    • #6
    • February 23, 2012 at 1:19 am
  7. Profile photo of Sandy Member

    In a democracy it is always going to be a problem for a wealthy candidate/elected official to avoid hitting the wealthy and he will always want to be seen as being on the side of the middle class. Note the necessity Romney seems to have for insisting that he earned his way, and for legions of candidates to tell us how poor they once were. It’s one of those tensions we probably have to live with, not that Romney could not do much better than he has (e.g., his pitiful comment on fixing the safety net). Yes, he does need those videos and yes, we will probably need something to dull the pain.

    • #7
    • February 23, 2012 at 1:23 am
  8. Profile photo of Joseph Eagar Member

    Dave, it’s because the independents buy this argument. And also because Romney isn’t proposing to cut taxes (which would be irresponsible beyond all reason), he’s planning to lower marginal rates while maintaining the same level of revenue.

    Keep in mind that Bush-style deficit-financed tax cuts are inherently regressive. Fiscal deficits, by their nature, lead to currency appreciation, which kills manufacturing and makes the cost of living rise (either through inflation, or–if the central bank allows the nominal exchange rate to rise–asset price bubbles, as in housing). Any rise in the cost of living falls hardest on the poor, of course, and destroying manufacturing jobs only makes the pain worse.

    Besides, true supply-side tax cuts are revenue-neutral. Putting money in the hands of consumers and businesses was always a Keynesian argument.

    • #8
    • February 23, 2012 at 1:31 am
  9. Profile photo of John Russell Inactive

    His daddy got chucked out of the presidential race after maintaining he was brainwashed by the U.S. military during his fact-finding trip to Vietnam. He was, you might recall, also a very successful businessman and a former governor.

    Maybe the problem is that these Romney boys have unsanforized, non-colorfast brains. Every time he gets it right along comes somebody with a bottle of Spray’n’Wash and a brain attachment and all that reassuring stern conservative coloration goes right down the drain.

    • #9
    • February 23, 2012 at 1:32 am
  10. Profile photo of DrewInWisconsin Member

    godzillafacepalmgodzillafacep1.jpg .

    • #10
    • February 23, 2012 at 1:35 am
  11. Profile photo of The King Prawn Member
    Joseph Eagar: Dave, it’s because the independents buy this argument. 

    But it’s a demonstrably false argument! I’d rather lose with the truth than win with a lie. That’s just me though.

    • #11
    • February 23, 2012 at 1:37 am
  12. Profile photo of ParisParamus Member

    So, now the progressive income tax system is unacceptable? Really?

    • #12
    • February 23, 2012 at 1:38 am
  13. Profile photo of Doug Kimball Member

    He’s killin’ me. Right here in my own backyard.

    He’s running for the Republican primary spot, right?

    I’m dying here in Chandler, AZ. I made a case for Mitt. I was convinced. Now I’m waffling. These last two statements – first he channels Krugman citing a reluctance to cut spending. Next, he channels Obama with this 1% fair share drivel.

    Unless he corrects the record and recants these two things in tonight’s debate, I’m dropping Mitt like a bad habit. 

    And I’m not alone.

     

    • #13
    • February 23, 2012 at 1:40 am
  14. Profile photo of The King Prawn Member
    ParisParamus: So, now the progressive income tax system is unacceptable? Really? · 1 minute ago

    It always has been. It epitomizes “from each according to his ability; to each according to his need.”

    • #14
    • February 23, 2012 at 1:41 am
  15. Profile photo of ParisParamus Member

    When did Romney say he isn’t cutting spending?

    • #15
    • February 23, 2012 at 1:42 am
  16. Profile photo of C. U. Douglas Thatcher
    Joseph Eagar: Dave, it’s because the independents buy this argument. And also because Romneyisn’t proposing to cut taxes(which would be irresponsible beyond all reason), he’s planning tolower marginal rateswhile maintaining the same level of revenue.

    Keep in mind that Bush-style deficit-financed tax cuts are inherently regressive. Fiscal deficits, by their nature, lead to currency appreciation, which kills manufacturing and makes the cost of living rise (either through inflation, or–if the central bank allows the nominal exchange rate to rise–asset price bubbles, as in housing). Any rise in the cost of living falls hardest on the poor, of course, and destroying manufacturing jobs only makes the pain worse.

    Besides, true supply-side tax cuts are revenue-neutral. Putting money in the hands of consumers and businesses was always a Keynesian argument. · 18 minutes ago

    I’m not certain if I follow you here. Are you saying tax cuts cause deficits?

    • #16
    • February 23, 2012 at 1:51 am
  17. Profile photo of Joseph Eagar Member

    Of course tax cuts cause deficits. They don’t have too, but you know how politicians love handing out free goodies via deductions and credits and whatnot.

    C. U. Douglas
    Joseph Eagar: Dave, it’s because the independents buy this argument. And also because Romneyisn’t proposing to cut taxes(which would be irresponsible beyond all reason), he’s planning tolower marginal rateswhile maintaining the same level of revenue.

    Keep in mind that Bush-style deficit-financed tax cuts are inherently regressive. Fiscal deficits, by their nature, lead to currency appreciation, which kills manufacturing and makes the cost of living rise (either through inflation, or–if the central bank allows the nominal exchange rate to rise–asset price bubbles, as in housing). Any rise in the cost of living falls hardest on the poor, of course, and destroying manufacturing jobs only makes the pain worse.

    Besides, true supply-side tax cuts are revenue-neutral. Putting money in the hands of consumers and businesses was always a Keynesian argument. · 18 minutes ago

    I’m not certain if I follow you here. Are you saying tax cuts cause deficits? · 12 hours ago

    • #18
    • February 23, 2012 at 1:59 am
  18. Profile photo of Paul A. Rahe Contributor

    This news is not surprising, but it is also not encouraging. One does not encourage growth by discouraging investment. Like Romney’s statement that he wanted to index the minimum wage to inflation, it suggests a real lack of understanding. It is hard to teach an old progressive new tricks.

    • #19
    • February 23, 2012 at 1:59 am
  19. Profile photo of jetstream Inactive

    0l9

    Paul A. Rahe: This news is not surprising, but it is also not encouraging. One does not encourage growth by discouraging investment. Like Romney’s statement that he wanted to index the minimum wage to inflation, it suggests a real lack of understanding. It is hard to teach an old progressive new tricks. · 2 minutes ago

    Professor, do you remember the Loyd Bridges character in the movie [edit: Airplane]? “It was a bad to quit drinking coffee”, “It was a bad time to quit smoking”, “It was a bad time to stop taking speed”, “It was a bad time to stop shooting heroin”, “It was a bad time to quit sniffing glue”.

    Romney and his more passionate supporters should be in the next [edit: Airplane] movie. “It’s a bad time to cut ethanol subsidies”, “It’s a bad time to cut government spending”, “It’s a bad time to cut the taxes of the wealthy”, “It’s a bad time to let people make their own healthcare decisions”, “It’s a bad time to get upset about out of control government” …

    • #20
    • February 23, 2012 at 2:16 am
  20. Profile photo of John Bollow Inactive

    I want to believe Ann Coulter, Hugh Hewitt and all the other happy defenders. But just when I do, Romney does another calculated move that seems to playing a game of moving an incremental data point some staffer has suggested will play well. Like waffling back in November on Gov. Kasich union fight. Or other examples mentioned by Prof. Rahe, above. In contrast, when I hear Sen. Santorum give a full-throated, smack down to the near-religious presupposititions behind radical environmentalism, and then (finally, someone!) connect the dots to energy policy, I find myself literally fist-pumping in the car on the commute home. Is this not what we want? A happy warrior?

    • #21
    • February 23, 2012 at 2:19 am
  21. Profile photo of David Williamson Member

    This is the guy Rob and James just endorsed in the latest podcast? Well, not endorse exactly, but that other religious guy is too freaky.

    I’m with Pat Buchanan – it’s the Roman Empire all over again, and Mr Obama is fiddling into a second term.

    • #22
    • February 23, 2012 at 2:21 am
  22. Profile photo of Palaeologus Member
    ParisParamus: When did Romney say he isn’t cutting spending? · 39 minutes ago

    He didn’t.

    • #23
    • February 23, 2012 at 2:22 am
  23. Profile photo of DrewInWisconsin Member

    Mitt Romney has been running, thus far, solely on fiscal bona fides. And yet he is singularly tone deaf when it comes to articulating fiscal conservatism.

    • #24
    • February 23, 2012 at 2:23 am
  24. Profile photo of ParisParamus Member

    #17, yes, I saw that afterwards. Yes, if you just cut spending without more, you will enter into the realm of European-like stagnation. You need to fix private sector tax policy in tandem with cutting spending. This is not really a point of debate.

    • #25
    • February 23, 2012 at 2:23 am
  25. Profile photo of jetstream Inactive
    ParisParamus: #17, yes, I saw that afterwards. Yes, if you just cut spending without more, you will enter into the realm of European-like stagnation. You need to fix private sector in tandem with cutting spending. This is not really a point of debate. · 0 minutes ago

    Nonsense!

    • #26
    • February 23, 2012 at 2:25 am
  26. Profile photo of Duane Oyen Member

    Why? Because in a country where demagoguery is the staple weapon of the opponents who own the bully pulpit and the microphone, if you announce any kind of tax relief on a flat rate basis, you have to proactively defend yourself against the “tax breaks for the rich” meme. 

    It is not that hard, folks. This is no time to drown ourselves out looking for perfect philosophy- the core message is that 1) you do not make tax rates more progressive, and 2) removing deductions is the way to move toward broader reform.

    All of us understand that the issue is marginal tax rates, not taxes.

    The term “the 1%” needs to be attacked away from the electoral hustings- especially by a richrichrich person. Why? Because when those around the median annual income of $48k are suffering from Obama’s food and energy inflation, the 1% income level is close to $200k per year. If Mr. Gotrocks proposed a reform that lowered his own taxes that would be the only point in the public narrative for the next month. 

    Every required entitlement reform- SS, Medicare, etc.- hits the lower middle class; don’t pour $5 gasoline on the pyre.

    • #27
    • February 23, 2012 at 2:43 am
  27. Profile photo of ParisParamus Member

    Romney is simply saying that unless you improve fiscal policy at the same time, just cutting government is not going to make things better. This is not really controversial. 

    Quit with the out-of-context statements.

    • #28
    • February 23, 2012 at 2:45 am
  28. Profile photo of DrewInWisconsin Member
    Duane Oyen: If Mr. Gotrocks proposed a reform that lowered his own taxes that would be the only point in the public narrative for the next month. 

    Make sense not to nominate Mr. Gotrocks, then.

    • #29
    • February 23, 2012 at 2:47 am
  29. Profile photo of PJ Kellogg Inactive

    I guess it’s out of line for me to want a Presidential nominee who will actually level with the American people and tell the truth: Our national debt and our trillions of unfunded future liabilities are so huge and severe, that ALL of us will have to pay a percent or two higher in taxes AND we will have to cut the size of government spending across the board. If we don’t actually do the tough measures, there is NO WAY we will ever prevent ourselves from becoming Greece.

    • #30
    • February 23, 2012 at 3:04 am
  1. 1
  2. 2