Ah, the debate. Those of us who support Mr. Obama were shocked by his apparent lack of combativeness in the first debate. But then I thought back to what I learned when going for my Master’s degree in Communication years ago: at the time of the very first televised debates, voters who watched on TV (the majority) gave the clear victory to Kennedy. Those, however, who listened on radio gave the edge to Nixon.
Now, I am not going to compare our current president with Tricky Dickey. But in reading excerpts of the recent debate, it becomes clear that Mr. Obama did land some body blows.
Specifically, let’s focus on the sword play around the “$5 trillion tax cut.” The president said that’s how much Mitt’s tax cut plan would reduce revenue over the next decade, and independent non-partisan studies back up that claim (well, they actually come up with “only” $4.8 trillion, but a little rounding is permissible).
The former governor says his proposal is “revenue neutral.” That means while the federal government would be taking in much less money via taxes, his plan will “pay for” those reduced revenues by having the government spend much less. In other words, one dollar less in tax will be offset by one dollar not spent. This is the crux of the issue. But HOW will he pay for those tax cuts? If he cannot offset those tax cuts, he explodes the deficit.
Mr. Obama pounced: “He is saying that he is going to pay for it by closing loopholes and deductions. The problem is that he’s been asked over 100 times how you would close those deductions and loopholes, and he hasn’t been able to identify them.”
That is correct. In TV and radio interviews, in press interviews, both Mr. Romney and Rep. Ryan sidestep the specifics. They want us to trust them. They have some secret sauce that will magically close deductions and loopholes, and the Congress will happily go along.
For anyone who knows anything about real-world politics, this is insane. Armies of lobbyists would swamp Capitol Hill fighting furiously to preserve their favorite tax break. And they will win many of those fights, just as they always have in the past.
Mitt gave a great performance at the first debate. But that’s all it was – a performance. The more his script is analyzed, the more we see that it was a sad charade.
For a balanced look at how the math does and doesn’t add up, check out this article from Bloomberg News.
Thanks for caring about the truth.
Ken
Sanity First! 
To be fair, as Romney pointed out in his debate, there are three “levers” that can be pulled to impact the deficit. 1. The tax rate 2. The amount of people paying taxes 3. The amount spent by the government. He claims that by reducing the tax rate (lever #1), he can improve the economy/create more jobs, which means more people will be paying taxes and at higher base income levels (lever #2). Many people who think this way will argue that lowering taxes can actually INCREASE revenue because of this (supposed) effect.
As an extreme example (with 0% likelihood), if we reduce taxes to 90% of current levels, but that creates jobs such that there are 10% more people working and on average, everyone is now making 10% more money than in the current recession, then the amount of total revenue increases. Again, this is a contrived and extreme example to illustrate many republicans’ way of thinking.
My point is, while I don’t agree with Romney, you can’t just say that a reduction in the tax rate necessitates a reduction in spending to be revenue neutral – you also have to prove that it won’t result in a material increase in the base amount of money being taxed.
I think looking at the 8 years under bush and the 8 years prior under Clinton show at least two data points that run counter to this idea that lower taxes automatically mean more jobs/better economy. That said, those two data points also don’t prove the opposite is true either (correlation does not imply causation).
Excellent point. The key fact remains, however, that Romney has expressed repeatedly that a key “lever” is his plan to reduce “the amount spent by the government.” And both he and Rep. Ryan have steadfastly refused to elaborate on the specifics.